s 


W.  R.  ROTHWELL. 


lit 


t 


MAR  2  4  1905 


230 


v.l 
c.l 


O 


CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 


THEOLOGICAL  AND  PHILOSOPHICAL 

LIBRAEY: 

A  SERIES  OF  TEXT-BOOKS,  ORIGINAL  AND  TRANSLATED, 


aufc  £l)eological  Seminaritff. 


EDITED  BY 

EEXRY  B.  SMITH,  D.D.,  AND  PHILIP  SCHAFF,  D.D. 

raOITSSOBS  IX  THE  UKIOIT  THEOLOGICAL  SEUZMABT,   NEW  TOBK. 


VOLB.  I.  AND  n.  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  DIVISION: 

VAN  OOSTERZEE'S  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 


NEW   YORK: 

SCRIBNER,  ARMSTRONG  &   CO. 


CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS: 


A   TEXT-BOOK 


FOR 


Academical  Instruction  and  Private  Studv. 


J.  J.  VAN   OOSTERZEE,    D.D.. 

J       J  1  9 

PROFESSOR  OF  THEOLOGY  IN  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTRECHT. 


BY 

JOHN    WATSON    WATSON,    B.A., 

VICAR  OF  KEWBURGH,  LANCASHIRE  ; 
AND 

MAURICE    J.     EVANS,    B.A., 

STRATFORD-UPON-AVON. 


VOL  UME   I. 


NEW  YORK: 

SCRIBNER,    ARMSTRONG    &    CO 


\ 

y 


Christianus  Evangelicus  mihi  nomen,  Refonnatus  cognomen. 


JOHN  F.  TROW  &  SON, 

PRINTERS  AND  BOOKBINDERS, 

aos-ai3  /?rt.rf  latA  S/., 

NSW  YORK. 


PREFACE 

OF   THE   GENERAL   EDITORS. 


FROM  the  numerous  foreign  systems  of  Theology  the  Editors 
of  the  Philosophical  and  Theological  Library  have  selected  Pro- 
fessor VAN  OOSTERZEE'S  Christian  Dogmatics,  recently  published 
in  Holland,  as  being  upon  the  whole  the  work  best  adapted  to 
the  wants  of  English  and  American  students.  It  is  a  book  of 
marked  ability  and  learning,  full  of  matter  skillfully  condensed, 
lucid  in  arrangement  and  method,  fresh  in  style,  evangelical  in 
sentiment,  showing  a  familiar  acquaintance  with  German,  French, 
and  Dutch  literature,  sufficiently  large  for  a  text-book,  and  nearer, 
perhaps,  to  the  prevailing  type  of  Anglo-American  Theology  than 
any  similar  work  produced  of  late  years  on  the  continent  of 
Europe. 

Dr.  Van  Oosterzee  is  already  favorably  known  to  English 
readers  by  his  Commentaries  on  Luke  and  the  Pastoral  Epistles 
in  Lange's  Biblework,  and  by  his  Theology  of  the  New  Testament, 
which  have  been  translated  and  published  in  England  and  the 
United  States.  He  is  regarded  as  the  first  pulpit-orator  and 
divine  of  the  evangelical  school  in  Holland.  He  was  born  in 
Rotterdam,  1817,  studied  at  Utrecht,  labored  for  18  years  as 
pastor  of  the  principal  Reformed  Church  in  Rotterdam,  and  since 
1862  as  Professor  of  Systematic  and  Practical  Theology  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Utrecht.  Besides  several  volumes  of  Sermons,  some 
of  which  have  been  translated  into  German,  he  wrote  in  Dutch  a 
large  work  on  the  Life  of  Christ  (i846-'5i,  2d  ed.  i863~'65,  in  3 
vols.),  and  a  Christology,  or  Manual  for  Christians,  i855-'6i,  in 
3  vols.  When  the  chair  of  Systematic  Theology  in  the  Seminary 
of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  at  New  Brunswick,  N.  J.  became 


vacant  a  few  years  ago,  there  was  a  strong  desire  to  give  him  a 
call  to  this  country,  but  he  declined  being  a  candidate,  and  felt 
that  it  was  his  duty  to  remain  in  his  native  land.  In  1873  he  was 
invited  as  the  chief  representative  from  Holland  to  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance  in  New  York,  and  had 
fully  made  up  his  mind  to  visit  America,  but  was  prevented  at 
the  last  moment,  and  sent  his  contribution,  an  able  essay  on  The 
Gospel  History  and  Modern  Criticism,  through  his  friend,  Dr. 
Cohen  Stuart. 

The  Christian  Dogmatics  is  the  most  important  work  of  this 
distinguished  scholar.  It  gives  the  mature  results  of  long-con- 
tinued, earnest,  and  devout  study  of  the  articles  of  our  Christian 
faith.  It  will,  we  trust,  prove  a  safe  and  useful  guide  to  students 
in  our  institutions  of  sacred  learning. 

HENRY  B.  SMITH  AND  PHILIP  SCHAFF. 

NEW  YORK,  July  6,  1874. 


PREFACE    TO    THE    FIRST    PART    OF    THE 
ORIGINAL    WORK. 


IN  accordance  with  the  promise,  perhaps  somewhat  rashly  made, 
on  the  publication  of  my  Theology  of  the  New  Testament,  I  now 
send  forth  a  similar  Handbook  for  the  study  of  Christian 
Dogmatics. 

That  I  do  so  not  without  hesitation  I  need  hardly  say  ;  I  feel  I 
am  like  the  sailor  who  is  rowing  against  wind  and  current.  The 
science  which  I  seek  in  this  way  to  advance  has,  in  the  opinion  of 
many,  no  longer  any  right  to  exist,  and  becomes,  in  the  hands  of 
others,  but  too  easily  a  dangerous  weapon,  especially  against  its 
own  priests.  Yet  I  deemed  I  ought  not  to  be  restrained  by  con- 
siderations in  great  part  of  a  personal  character.  I  look  upon  the 
publication  of  this  work  to  some  extent  as  a  duty,  the  discharge 
of  which  I  owe  first  of  all  to  my  Academical  hearers,  perhaps  also 
to  myself.  In  addition  to  this,  I  cannot  dispute  the  right  of  those 
who  desire  to  know  what  doctrine  is  taught  at  this  critical  period 
of  transition  for  Church  and  Theology  in  the  University  of 
Utrecht ;  and  willingly  furnish,  in  this  way,  amongst  others, 
testimony  concerning  principles  of  faith  and  life,  which  are  dear 
to  my  heart,  and  are,  in  my  opinion,  however  bitterly  opposed  and 
contradicted,  as  yet  by  no  means  refuted.  I  must,  however, 
emphatically  request  that  the  great  difference — especially  in  our 
day  in  Holland — between  that  which  is  to  be  required  and  looked 
for  in  a  perfectly  elaborate  treatise  on  Christian  Dogmatics,  and 
that  which  is  to  be  reasonably  expected  in  an  Academical  Manual 
of  this  science,  be  not  overlooked.  The  aim  of  the  latter  must 
especially  be  to  serve  as  a  textbook  for  further  instruction  and 
private  study.  It  presents  itself  not  in  the  character  of  a  Law- 
giver, but  of  a  Guide ;  and  the  Author  may  at  once  congratulate 


viii  AUTHOR'S  PREFACE. 

himself,  if  his  work  has  called  forth  a  love  for  the  science,  and 
guided  the  study  of  it  in  the  right  direction. 

As  regards  this  Handbook  itself,  I  have  but  little  to  say.  It 
represents,  I  may  hope,  clearly  enough  the  Evangelic-churchly  stand- 
point, from  which  I  seek  with  a  free  and  good  conscience  to  serve 
science  and  the  Church  of  our  Lord.  The  arrangement  is  exactly 
similar  to  that  of  the  previous  Compendium  ;  because  this  appears 
to  me,  on  the  ground  of  my  own  experience,  most  conducive  to 
the  end  in  view.  In  this  case  also,  in  the  citation  of  the  Literature, 
I  have  attached  less  importance  to  absolute  neutrality  and  com- 
pleteness than  to  diversity  and  suitability;  and  I  have  endeavoured 
to  place  those  who  avail  themselves  of  my  guidance  in  a  position 
to  arrive  at  the  present  height  of  the  question  at  issue.  Ordinarily 
I  have  preferred  to  deal  with  the  subject  thetically  and  apologetic- 
ally rather  than  polemically,  and  have  sought  not  to  lose  sight  of 
the  claims  of  impartiality  and  courtesy  towards  those  who  think 
differently  from  me.  Especially  have  I  aimed  at  clearness  and  a 
strict  and  well-ordered  presentation  ;  since  I  have  always  been  of 
opinion  that  a  genuinely  scientific  work  without  clearness  and 
regular  coherence,  is  altogether  inconceivable.  For  the  copious  use 
of  foreign  words  and  technical  terms  I  have  to  apologise ;  they 
were  nevertheless  not  always  avoidable ;  many  of  them  have  been 
naturalised  within  the  most  recent  times,  and  a  Manual  does  not 
as  a  rule  present  a  model  of  style  or  eloquence.  If  I  have  been 
at  times  rather  lavish  in  the  citation  of  the  words  of  others,  for  the 
elucidation  or  confirmation  of  my  own  ideas,  this  was  because 
my  confidence  in  the  expression  of  these  ideas  was  not  a  little 
enhanced  by  the  consciousness  of  standing  in  select  society,  and 
especially  because  I  desired  thus  to  direct  my  readers  to  honoured 
contemporaries  or  predecessors  of  kindred  spirit,  to  whom  I  will- 
ingly confess  my  no  small  obligation. 

Glancing  at  the  little  which  in  our  land,  at  least,  has  been  done 
within  the  last  few  years  for  Christian  Dogmatics  as  a  whole,  and 
the  many  hindrances  to  its  study  presenting  themselves  on  so 
many  sides,  the  Author  would  perhaps  at  another  time  expect 
some  appreciation,  if  not  of  the  result,  at  least  of  the  courage  of 
his  attempt.  Now,  however,  he  will  thankfully  content  himself  if 
his  book  is  received  not  altogether  unfavourably,  and  especially  if 


AUTHOR'S  PREFACE.  ix 

by  his  labour  something  better  is  soon  called  forth.  For  it  is  his 
most  cherished  conviction,  that  the  Church  and  science,  in  the 
midst  of  unparalleled  confusion  of  tongue  and  loosing  of  ties  in 
the  moral-religious  domain,  will  be  the  gainers,  not  by  superficial 
neglect  and  slighting,  but  only  by  continued  development  and 
extension  of  Christian  study,  and  particularly  that  of  Christian 
doctrine.  If  my  Handbook  may  serve  in  some  measure  to  recover 
Dogmatics  from  the  bath  of  slime  and  mud  which  has  been  so 
plenteously  administered  to  it  in  our  country  within  the  past  few 
years,  and  help  to  preserve  it  on  the  other  hand  from  the  bath  of 
vapour  and  mist  which  seems  designed  for  it  on  other  sides,  I 
shall  not  complain  of  the  labour  bestowed  upon  this  work.  And 
if  it  is  afterwards  granted  me  to  serve  my  cherished  Practical 
Theology  in  like  manner,  I  hope  to  have  completed  my  task  in  this 
domain,  and,  so  far  as  my  circumstances  have  permitted  it,  to  have 
fulfilled  to  the  best  of  my  ability  the  promise  of  my  devotion  to 
Theological  Science,  made  in  silence  some  thirty  years  ago,  when 
the  degree  of  Doctor  was  conferred  upon  me. 

UTRECHT,  March  31,  1870. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  PART   OF  THE 
ORIGINAL  WORK. 


To  that  which  I  gave  by  way  of  Preface  to  the  First  Part,  two 
years  ago,  I  have  now  but  little  to  add.  Those  for  whose  use  Ihis 
work  was  especially  designed,  know  to  what  end,  and  in  what 
spirit,  it  is  now  offered  to  them.  As  regards  others  who  may  also 
make  use  of  it,  I  can  only  wish  that  they  will  here  look  for  nothing 
else  than  what  the  title  promises:  A  Textbook  for  Academic 
Instruction  and  Private  Study.  Such  a  Textbook  cannot,  it  will 
be  felt,  supply  all  that  might  be  reasonably  expected  in  an 
elaborate  Treatise  on  Christian  Doctrine.  It  must  rather  serve 
as  a  guiding-line  for  further  continued  instruction  ;  and  far  from 
rendering  other  aids  entirely  superfluous,  must  rather  lead  to  their 
being  consulted  with  augmented  interest.  The  somewhat  ample, 
although  far  from  complete,  Literature  at  the  close  of  each  Section, 
will  afford  abundant  occasion  for  doing  so ;  while  the  Points  for 
Inquiry  at  the  end  do  not  as  a  rule  call  attention  to  matters 
already  presented  with  sufficient  prominence,  but  precisely  to  those 
particulars  which  by  further  treatment  must  be  yet  more  fully 
elucidated.  He  who  might  too  hastily  suppose  that,  aiter  the 
study  of  the  text,  he  has  now  attained  to  the  full  height  of 
Christian  Dogmatics,  may  by  a  glance  at  these  Points  for  Inquiry 
receive  a  preliminary  lesson  in  modesty.  For  myself  they  might 
perhaps  hereafter  afford  abundant  material  for  a  greatly  enlarged 
edition,  provided  the  necessity  for  'this  were  to  arise,  the  Author 
were  ten  years  younger,  and  the  book  had  not  already  grown  to  a 
sufficient  size.  As  regards  this  last,  I  should  myself  have  wished 
it  otherwise,  but  the  material  as  I  went  on  gained  upon  me,  and 
now  that  at  any  rate  it  lias  become  so,  I  cannot  do  better  than 


AUTHOR'S  PREFACE.  xi 

wholly  adopt  the  words  of  Augustine  at  the  close  of  his  Treatise 
De  Doctrind  Christiana :  "  Longior  evasit  liber,  quam  volebam, 
quamque  putaveram.  Sed  l^genti  vel  audienti,  cui  gratus  est, 
longus  non  erit ;  cui  autem  longus  est,  per  partes  eum  legat ;  quern 
vero  cognitionis  ejus  piget,  de  longitudine  non  queratur." 

Above  all  I  lay  stress  upon  the  fact  that  this  work  must  be 
regarded  and  accepted  as  a  Manual  for  Christian  Dogmatics,  in 
the  old  and  well-known,  but  also  broad  and  kindly  sense  of  the 
word.  No  other  Dogmatics  can  I  admit  to  be  Christian,  than  that 
which  sees  in  Christ  the  King  of  Truth  ;  in  the  Gospel,  the  fruit  of 
a  Divine  Revelation  of  Salvation  ;  and  in  the  Word  of  the  Lord 
and  His  Apostles,  rightly  comprehended  and  maintained,  the 
trustworthy  standard  of  the  Church's  confession.  I  can  thus — with 
all  fairness  in  the  estimate  of  the  persons  and  talents  of  those 
who  espouse  and  maintain  other  principles — speak  of  no  other 
mode  of  view  as  Christian,  than  that  which  recognises  the  supra- 
natural  character  of  the  Doctrine  of  Salvation,  and  has  inscribed 
upon  its  banners  the  maxim  :  "  per  fidem  ad  intellectum."  "  Le 
Christianisme" — I  endorse  without  reserve  the  words  of  an  eloquent 
Swiss  Preacher  of  the  present  day* — "  le  Christianisme,  moins 
1'element  surnaturel,  c'est  le  Chris:ianisme  moins  la  Bible,  qui 
n'est  plus  que  la  simple  parole  d'un  homme  ;  c'est  le  Christianisme 
moins  Jesus  Christ,  qui  n'est  plus  un  Sauveur,  meme  un  Revelateur, 
mais  simplement  un  sage  ;  c'est  le  Christianisme  moins  le  Dieu 
personnel,  qui  disparait  dans  le  Fatalisme  des  lois  de  la  nature ; 
c'est  le  Christianisme  moins  tout  1'extraordinare  et  toute  1'origin- 
alite  de  sa  morale  ;  moins  le  peche,  qui  n'est  plus  qu'une  imperfec- 
tion naturelle  et  comme  qui  dirait  la  naive  et  debile  enfance  du 
bien ;  moins  la  conversion,  qui  devient  un  nonsens ;  moins  la 
priere,  qui  ne  comporte  plus  de  rdponse;  c'est  le  Christianisme 
ramene  a  la  religion  naturelle  enfin,  et  la  religion  naturelle  ramenee 
a  sa  moins  religieuse  formule :  crois  a  ta  raison,  et  fais  ce  qui  te 
semble  bien."  In  truth,  such  a  Christianity,  in  which  none  of  the 
Apostles,  the  Reformers,  the  Martyrs  of  an  earlier  age,  would 
recognise  his  own,  can  hardly,  even  upon  scientific  grounds, 
continue  to  bear  this  name,  and,  unless  we  are  entirely  mistaken, 

F.  COULIN,  in  the  Semain'  Religieuse  de  Geneve  of  1870. 


Xll 


AUTHOR'S  PREFACE. 


it  will  within  a  few  years  be  spoken  of  as  amongst  the  most 
remarkable  hallucinations  of  the  present  day,  that,  while  advo- 
cating such  a  series  of  denials,  any  should  still  think  of  retaining, 
with  any  legitimate  claim,  the  title  of  Christians,  yea,  of  Ministers 
of  the  Gospel  in  any  Christian  Church.  What  remains  in  the 
long  run  of  that  which  is  Christian,  where  almost  all  that  is 
essentially  Christian  is  relegated  to  the  cabinet  of  antiquities  ?  To 
protest  with  all  earnestness  against  such  a  Christianity  is  a  duty 
also  for  the  servant  of  the  science  of  faith,  a  duty  prescribed  not 
only  by  honour  and  good  faith,  but  also  by  the  desire  of  self- 
preservation.  If  Modernism  is  right,  not  only  Christian  Dogmatics, 
but  also  the  whole  of  Theological  Science,  loses,  with  the  Christian 
Church,  its  right  of  independent  existence. 

But  if,  for  these  reasons,  I  wished  to  give  nothing  less  than  truly 
Christian  Dogmatics,  I  also  wished  to  give  nothing  more ; 
Christian,  not  so  much  Churchly  Dogmatics,  at  least  not  in  the 
sense  which  is  ordinarily  attached  to  this  term.  Wherefore  ? 
Because  I  perhaps  overlook  the  importance  and  the  value  of  the 
last  mentioned,  or  possibly  because  in  the  region  of  Dogmatics 
I  affect  a  Christianity  raised  above  diversities  of  belief?  The 
Handbook  itself  is  there  to  prove  the  opposite  ;  it  is  written 
not  merely  from  a  universally  Christian,  but  from  a  definitely 
Churchly  point  of  view,  and  the  writer  rejoices  that,  in  connection 
with  the  convictions  as  to  the  faith  here  expressed,  he  can  with  a 
good  conscience  remain  in  the  fellowship  of  that  Church,  which  he 
has  in  his  heart  never  ceased  to  serve.  But  he  would  be  afraid  of 
not  serving  it  in  accordance  with  the  demands  and  needs  of  the 
present  time,  if  he  had  in  his  outlines  of  the  Doctrine  of  Salvation 
conceded  too  large  a  place  to  the  Churchly,  at  the  expense  of  the 
Christian,  element.  Rather  than  a  strictly  denominational,  my 
Dogmatics  seeks  to  bear  a  strongly  apologetic  character ;  and  I 
believe  it  must  bear  this,  if  it  is  in  any  measure  to  correspond  to 
the  most  pressing  wants  of  those  for  whom  it  was  first  intended. 
The  great  opposition,  however,  which  dominates  everything  else, 
is  not  now  that  between  Reformed  and  non-Reformed  ;  not  even 
that  between  Evangelical  Protestant  and  Roman  Catholic';  but 
that  between  the  Christian  belief  in  Revelation  of  past  ages  and  the 
Naturalism  of  the  present  day.  I  can  on  this  account  explain  it 


AUTHOR'S  PREFACE.  xiii 

only  from  the  short-sightedness  of  incurable  sectarianism,  that  so 
many  in  our  time  aim  at  being  in  a  high  degree  Churchly  and 
strictly  orthodox,  without  having  first  scientifically  acquired  for 
themselves  the  right  before  all'things  still  to  be  called  Christian, 
in  the  positive,  historic  sense  of  the  word.  The  effort,  connected 
therewith,  to  raise  the  confessional  (denominational)  walls  of 
separation  as  high  as  possible,  I  must  for  my  part  regard  as  a 
melancholy  Anachronism,  which  can  by  no  means  prove  a  blessing 
to  the  Church,  and  is  moreover  a  source  of  great  injury  to  our 
fiercely  assailed  Christianity.  The  first  question,  at  least  for  him 
who  looks  more  deeply  and  beyond  the  moment,  is  in  truth  not 
whether  the  gold  of  your  highly-lauded  orthodoxy  is  defective  to 
the  extent  of  a  few  carats  or  more  ;  but  whether  (in  presence  of  a 
denial  and  assailing,  which  is  indeed  without  example  in  history) 
one  can  still  with  a  good  conscience  remain  a  Christian,  Protestant 
Christian,  Reformed  Christian,  by  all  means ;  but  above  all  an 
Evangelical-Catholic  Christian,  who  still  need  not  hesitate  to 
repeat  Paul's  glorying  in  the  faith,  to  make  his  own  the  confession 
of  Thomas,  and  to  follow  the  eagle-flight  of  John.  He  who  over- 
looks that,  and  at  the  same  time,  in  the  treatment  of  the  doctrine 
of  Salvation,  is  much  more  zealous  for  a  Church  system  than  for  the 
defence  of  Christianity,  may  possibly  serve  a  sect  which  spasmodic- 
ally clings  to  the  past,  but  certainly  not  the  cause  of  the  Lord, 
who  is  manifestly  engaged  in  the  midst  of  all  the  agitations  of  this 
age,  in  giving  to  His  flock  in  all  communities,  in  place  of  the  old, 
something  new.  If  there  is  one  cause  to  which  at  the  present  time 
all  are  called,  who  are  really  concerned  for  nothing  else  than  the 
triumph  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  it  is  the  advancing,  in  the  domain 
of  Dogmatics  also,  of  a  true,  hearty,  genuine  Evangelical  Alliance 
of  all  who  ia  reality  build  upon  the  same  foundation,  as  against  an 
enemy  whose  whole  aim  is  against  not  merely  a  particular  Church 
life,  but  against  the  Christian  life,  the  Religious  life,  the  whole 
Spiritual  life  of  ourselves  and  our  children.  A  temperate  mainte- 
nance of  our  own  peculiar  Church-life  is  in  perfect  harmony  with 
this  endeavour;  but  riot  the  unhesitating  swearing  by  what  is  old, 
because  it  has  now  obtained  the  sanction  of  time,  and  just  as  little 
the  real  suspecting  of  the  new,  because  one  has  hitherto  been  wont 
to  teach  and  understand  something  different.  If  my  Dogmatics 


xiv  AUTHOR'S  PREFACE. 

may  contribute,  in  its  modest  degree,  to  serve  the  sacred  cause  of 
such  a  Union  of  all  truly  believing  Evangelical  Christians,  I  shall 
esteem  it  an  exceeding  great  cause  of  thanksgiving,  even  though 
I  must  in  return  endure  the  suspicion  or  reproach  of  some,  who 
have  no  trifling  conception  of  the  conflict  of  principles  in  the 
province  of  this  science,  and  in  whose  estimate  I  am  naturally  not 
quite  "sound."  Just  as  much  do  I  desire  to  be  an  Apologete  of 
Christian  liberty,  as  of  Christian  trutJi,  but  most  of  all  of  Christian 
love. 

Should  my  work,  at  any  rate,  be  made  the  means  of  refreshing 
or  strengthening  to  others,  and  bear  in  itself  a  seed  for  eternity,  to 
the  Lord  of  the  vineyard,  who  is  also  Lord  of  the  harvest,  alone  be 
the  praise  and  the  glory  ! 

J.  J.  v.  O. 

UTRECHT,  June  30,  1872. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  ENGLISH  TRANSLATION. 


I  CANNOT  let  the  English  translation  of  my  Christian  Dogmatics 
appear  without,  in  accordance  with  the  desire  of  the  Translators 
and  Publishers,  prefacing  it  with  some  words  by  way  of  Intro- 
duction. 

These  words  may,  however,  be  few,  since  I  need  not  repeat  what 
I  have  already  stated  concerning  the  character  and  intention  of 
the  work,  in  the  Preface  to  the  original  publication.  First  of  all, 
then,  a  word  of  thanks  for  the  very  favourable  manner  in  which 
several  of  my  theological  writings,  and  specially  my  Theology  of 
the  New  Testament,  translated  in  England  by  the  skilful  hand  of 
the  Rev.  M.  J.  Evans,  in  America  by  that  of  Professor  G.  E.  Day, 
have  been  received  and  reviewed  both  in  England  and  America. 
Feeling  deeply  as  I  do  the  imperfection  of  my  work,  I  have  found 
in  this  a  great  cause  of  thankfulness  to  God,  as  well  as  a  powerful 
encouragement  to  further  labour. 

The  task,  which  my  friends  the  Rev.  M.  J.  Evans  and  Rev.  J. 
W.  Watson  voluntarily  undertook  in  translating  my  Christian 
Dogmatics,  was  by  no  means  an  easy  one.  As  far  as  I  am  able  to 
judge,  they  have  accomplished  their  task  not  only  with  zeal  and 
love,  but  also  with  conscientious  skill.  If  their  labour  has 
succeeded,  a  portion  of  their  thanks  and  mine  is  due  to  the  energy 
and  care  of  the  unwearied  Secretary  of  the  Netherlands  branch  of 
the  Evangelical  Alliance,  the  Rev.  M.  Cohen  Stuart,  (now  D.D. 
of  Rutgers  College  N.  J.,)  Emeritus  Predikant  at  Rotterdam,  who 
has  carefully  compared  the  translation  with  the  original  work,  and 
thus  has  done  his  best  to  further  the  scientific  alliance  of  his  and 
my  fatherland  with  the  lands  beyond  the  Atlantic. 

For  all  the   defects  which,   notwithstanding,  may  be  found  in 


xvi  AUTHOR'S  PREFACE. 

our  common  work,  I  ask  in  my  own  name,  and  in  that  of  my 
fellow-labourers,  the  kind  indulgence  of  my  readers. 

With  the  prayer  that  this,  my  Theology  of  the  Kingdom,  may 
contribute  something  towards  the  coming  and  flourishing  of  that 
Kingdom,  which  must  yet  embrace  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  I 
take  this  opportunity  of  offering  my  Christian  brotherly  greeting 
to  all  my  companions,  both  in  faith  and  conflict,  far  and  near,  on 
this  and  the  other  side  of  the  ocean,  among  whom  are  so  many 
towards  whom  my  heart  beats  with  love  and  admiration.  May 
He,  who  is  the  Truth,  lead  us  by  each  prayerful  investigation  more 
into  His  truth,  and  sanctify  us  through  that  truth  ;  and  may  He 
bring  us  together  one  day  where  we  shall  no  more  prophesy  in 
part,  but  shall  know,  even  as  also  we  are  known,  in  and  through 
Him  who  has  loved  us.  (i  Cor.  xiii.  12.) 

J.  J.  v.  O. 

UTRECHT,  December,  187.3. 


CONTENTS  OF  VOLUME  FIRST. 


PAGE 

INTRODUCTION  •  •  J — 74 

CHAPTER   I. 

CHARACTER  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS  •  •  I — 12 

SECT.    i.  Its  Idea       -  i —  3 

ii.  Its  Possibility  •  -  3 —  5 

in.  Its  Peculiarity  -  *  6  —  8 

iv.  Its  Place  *  9 — 10 

v.  Its  Value     -  -  11—12 

CHAPTER  II. 

SOURCES  OF   CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS  -  •  13 — 28 

VI.  General  Survey  •  13 — 14 

vii.  The  Fountain-Head,  Christ  -  15—16 

vm.  Holy  Scripture  -  16 — 18 

ix.  The  Symbolical  Writings  -  -  18 — 21 

x.  The  Christian  Consciousness  -  ••  22 — 28 

CHAPTER  III. 

HISTORY   OF   CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS  -  29 — 56 

xi.  In  the  Bud  -  29~ 31 

xii.  Development          -  •  31 — 35 

xin.  Reformation  •  35     39 

xiv.  Degeneration          -  •  39     47 

xv.  Revival       -  "*  4^ 56 

CHAPTER  IV. 

CLAIMS  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS      -  •  57~ 74 

xvi.  Its  Starting-point     - 
xvn.  Its  Method 
xvin.  Its  Division 
xix.  Its  Perfectibility 

xx.  Its  Object    -    '  7*— 74 

t> 


xviii  CONTENTS. 

PART     I.  PAGE 

THE  APOLOGETIC  FOUNDATION          -              -  75—228 
CHAPTER  I. 

SECT. 

RELIGION       -                                  ....  75 — 101 

xxi.  Its  Nature    -                                                              -  75 —  77 

xxii.  Its  Origin     -            -            -            -           ,*   .         -  78 —  81 

xxni.  Its  Seat                     -                                     -  81—  85 

xxiv.  Its  Final  Object        .            -            -            -  85—  87 

xxv.  Its  Diversity  -  -  88 —  93 

xxvi.  Its  Degeneration  -  ...  93 —  97 

xxvn.  Its  Rule  (or  Standard)  -  97 — 101 

CHAPTER  II. 

REVELATION                                                                                      -  IO2 — 165 

xxvin.  Its  Idea        -                                                               -  102 — 108 

xxrx.  General  Revelation   -                                                  -  108 — 112 

xxx.  Special  Revelation.     Its  Necessity   -                         -  112 — 116 

xxxi.  Its  Possibility                                                              -  116 — 120 

xxxn.  Its  Reality    -                                                              -  120 — 154 

xxxin.  Its  Excellence                                                             -  155 — 159 

xxxiv.  Its  Relation  to  Reason                                              -  159 — 165 

CHAPTER  III. 

HOLY  SCRIPTURE        -                                                                   -  l66 — 228 

xxxv.  Its  Essential  Contents          -                         -            -  166 — 169 

xxxvi.  Its  Origin    -                        -                                      -  170 — 179 

xxxvu.  Its  Extent    -                                     ...  179—183 

xxxviii.  Its  Character                                     ...  ^3 — 193 

xxxix.  Its  Inspiration                                   ...  j^4 — 2o8 

XL.  Its  Value     ......  208 — 220 

XLI.  Its  Use       ......  220—228 


PART   II. 
THE  DOGMATIC  SUPERSTRUCTURE        -  -  229—810 

CHAPTER   I. 
ON  GOD,  OR  THE  SOVEREIGN  OF  THE  KINGDOM  OF 

HEAVEN  (THEOLOGY)       -                       .           -229—354 
XLII.  Introductory  Survey  ....     229 233 


CONTENTS. 


XIX 


FIRST  DIVISI 

• 

THE    NATURE    OF    GOD. 


PAGE 


SECT. 

XLIII. 

XLIV. 

XLV. 

XLVI. 

XLVII. 

XLVIII. 

XLIX. 

L. 

LI. 

LI i. 

LIII. 

LIV. 

LV. 


The  Knowledge  of  God      -  -  234 — 238 

Belief  in  God  -  238 — 243 

The  Idea  of  God    -  -  243 — 249 

The  Unity  of  God  -  250 — 251 

The  Attributes  of  God  -  251 — 255 

God's  Mode  of  Existence    -  -  256 — 260 

God's  Mode  of  Working      -  -  260 — 269 

Harmony.     God  is  Love     -  -  269 — 271 

God  as  Father  -  272 — 274 

The  Son  of  God     -  -  275 — 279 

The  Holy  Ghost     -  -  279 — 284 

The  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  -  -  284 — 294 

God's  Plan  of  the  World    -  -  295 — 299 

SECOND    DIVISION. 

THE  WORKS  OF  GOD. 

LVI.  The  Universe  -  300 — 308 

LVII.  The  World  of  Spirits  :             -  308—317 

LVIII.  The  Creation  of  the  World  -  317 — 326 

LIX.  The  Providence  of  God      -  -  326 — 331 

LX.  The  Upholding  of  all  things  -  331 — 334 

LXI.  The  Divine  Government  -  335 — 339 

LXII.  The  Divine  Government  (Continuation)  -             -  340 — 346 

LXIII.  The  Theodice'e       -  -  346 — 352 

LXIV;  Conclusion.     Harmony  between  God's  Nature  and 

Works    -                                   -  -  353 — 354 


CHAPTER    II. 

ON  MAN,  OR  THE  SUBJECT  OF  THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD 

(ANTHROPOLOGY)  -  355 — 441 

LXV.  Transition  and  General  Survey  -    355 — 358 


FIRST  DIVISION. 

MAN'S  ORIGINAL  NATURE. 


LXVI.  His  Origin  - 

LXVII.  His  Nature  - 

LXVIII.  His  Destination 
LXIX.  The  Image  of  God 
LXX.  The  Original  Condition 
LXXI.  The  Possibility  of  Falling    - 


-  359—364 

-  365-368 

-  369—373 

-  374—377 

-  378-385 

-  385-388 


INTRODUCTION. 


CHAPTER  I. 
CHARACTER  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 


SECTION    I. — IDEA. 

CHRISTIAN  Dogmatics  is  that  part  of  theological  science  which 
occupies  itself  with  the  investigation  and  systematic  development 
of  the  contents  and  ground  of  the  religious  truth  which  is  believed 
and  confessed  by  the  Christian  Church  as  a  whole,  or  by  one  of 
its  sections  in  particular.  It  must  thus,  as  an  historical-philoso- 
phical science,  be  distinguished  from  the  Biblical  Theology  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  as  well  as  from  the  so-called 
speculative  philosophy. 

1.  Christian  Dogmatics  treats  of  dogma  as  such,  and  thus  has,  at  the 
outset,   to  define  the  idea  contained  in  this   word.     In   doing  this,  we 
must  carefully  distinguish  between  the  classical,  biblical,  and  ecclesiastical 
use  of  the  word.     This  latter  use,  too,  is  variable,  but  yet  dogma  always 
denotes  something  more  than  a  merely  individual  and  temporary  opinion. 
The  ecclesiastical  dogma  is  the  expression,  formulated  as  accurately  as 
possible,  of  the  avowed  belief,  not  merely  of  the  individual,  but  of  the 
community.     We   might  also  call  it   the   ripened  fruit  of  Christian  ex- 
perience, in  so  far  as  the  doctrine  is  the  product  of  the  inner  life,  and 
the  theory  is  preceded  by  practice.     We  must  not,  however,  forget  that 
other  factors   contribute  to  the  formation  and  determination  of  dogma, 
and  that  every  dogma,  as  the  human  expression  of  divine  truth,  is  always 
susceptible  of  reformation  and  development. 

2.  Christian  Dogmatics  (Dogmatica  sc.  scientia)  makes  the  subject-matter 
and  origin  of  dogma  the  object  of  special  investigation.     It  was  formerly 


2  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

called  Ttieok^ia  positiva,  systematica,  thetica,  and  even  theoretica.  The  last 
apiellation,  derived  from  Doederlein,  (t  i?92.)  was  accepted  in  Holland 
by  Muntinghe  and  others.  The  name  of  Theologia  dogmatica  has  been 
in  use  since  the  time  of  Buddeus  (t  1729).  and  has  now  and  then  been 
replaced  by  the  names  of  Theologia  didactica,  didascalica,  and  scientifica, 
in  contrast  with  popularis.  In  the  present  century,  more  than  in  previous 
times,  distinction  lias  been  made— though,  in  our  opinion,  without 
sufficient  reason— between  Doctrine  of  Faith  and  Dogmatics  (Schleier- 
macher,  Rothe,  Schweitzer).  Jn  this  work  both  names  will  be  used 
indiscriminately. 

3.  The  object  of  Dogmatics  is  the  moral  religious  truth  (dx^eta)  confessed 
by  the  Christian  Church  as  a  whole,  or  by  any  Christian  community  in 
particular.    It  will  thus  exhibit  either  a  general  Christian  or  a  special  eccle- 
siastical character.     In  both  cases  it  investigates  what  is  to  be  held  as  truth 
within  its  sphere,  and  the  reasons  for  this  avowal.     Not  content  with  an 
atomic  examination,  it  seeks  to  know  and  present  truth  in  its  entirety, 
*>.,  in  the  mutual  coherence  of  all  its  parts.     Its  design  is  not  merely  to 
collect  and  arrange  the  various  stones,  but  to  combine  them  into  one  archi- 
tectural whole. 

4.  There  is  no  necessary  opposition  between  Christian  and  Ecclesiastical 
Dogmatics.     The  general  Christian  dissolves  into  the  individual  ecclesias- 
tical, as  light  into  different  colours.     On  the  contrary,  the  latter  must  pro- 
ceed from,  and  return  to,  the  former,  else  it  becomes  confined  and  sectarian. 
The  manner  in  which  we  must  treat  of  Christian  Dogmatics  is  of  itself 
determined  by  the  particular  relation  in  which  the  student  stands  to  the 
confession  of  faith  of  his  own  Church  ;  while  a  sincere  attachment  to  his 
Church  leaves,  at  least  in  the  realm  of  Protestantism,  room  for  independent 
representation  and  development  of  doctrine. 

5.  Christian  Dogmatics  and  Biblical  Theology,  though  so  closely  allied, 
are  yet  definitely  distinguished  the  one  from  the  other.     The  latter  supplies 
the  materials  which  the  former  is  to  employ.     The  Biblical  Theology  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments  asks,  in  a  purely  historical  manner,  What  does 
Holy  Scripture  teach  ?     Christian  Dogmatics,  on  the  contrary,  investigates 
philosophically  the  question,  What  must  I  hold  as  truth  ?     The  former  pre- 
sents objectively  what  Holy  Scripture  tells  with  regard  to  the  highest  life- 
questions  ;  whilst  the  latter  develops  the  subject-matter  of  the  confession  as 
it  has  become  subjectively  truth  and  life.     It  is   "  a  living  reproduction  01 
belief  from  the  soul  of  the  believer  "  (Twesten). — Dogmatics,  again,  is  dis- 
tinguished from  speculative  philosophy  in  this,  that  while  the  latter  takes 
the  pure  human  consciousness  as  its  starting-point;    Dogmatics,  on  the 
contrary,  must  above  all  take  account  with  an  historical  fact,  with  the  belief 
of  the  community  in  a  Divine  revelation.     It  makes  the  subject  and  ground 
of  this  belief  the  material  for  its  investigation,  in  order  to  purify  the  idea, 
to  develop  it,  and,  where  necessary,  to  defend  it.     It  is  "une  philosophic, 
doni  la  base  est  donnee  "  (Vinet),  and  thus  as  a  science  sustains  a  twofold 
character.     It  proceeds  from  that  which  is  given,  not  in  order  to  leave  it  as 

is  given;  it  reasons  and  philosophizes,  but  not  in  the   abstract.     Its 
material  is  an  historic  product,  but  it  must  treat  this  in  a  Christian  philo- 
(really  critical)  method. 


ITS   POSSIBILITY.  3 

Compare,  besides  the  well-known  handbooks  and  encyclopaedias  of  Theology,  the 
article  Dogmatik,  by  J.  MULLER,  in  Iferzog's  Real.  Enc.  iii.,  and  the  books  quoted  in 
it ;  F.  LICHTENBERGEII,  Dts  Elements  Consiitutifs  de  la  Science  Dogmatique  (1860) ; 
R.  ROTHE,  Zur  Do^matik  (1863),  pp.  2 — 55  ;  and  OOSTERZEE,  Theology  of  New  Test. 
Eng.  trans.,  2  ed.  1873,  P-  4- 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Gradual  change  in  the  meaning  of  the  word  dogma. — Different  import  and  value  of 
this  idea  from  the  Romanist  and  Protestant  standpoint. — Further  elucidation  of  the 
idea  of  Dogmatics. — Is  there  sufficient  reason  for  distinguishing  between  Dogmatics 
and  Doctrine  of  Faith? — Can  Dogmatics  be  both  Christian  and  ecclesiastical? — The 
relation  of  Dogmatics  and  Symbolism. — Is  it  right  to  define  Dogmatics  as  the  description 
of  the  _re  of  the  Christian  community  ? — Criticism  of  some  other  definitions  of  the  idea. 


SECTION   II. — ITS   POSSIBILITY. 

The  possibility  of  carrying  on  with  satisfactory  results  such  an 
investigation  as  Christian  Dogmatics  purposes,  though  it  has  often 
been  disputed,  is  placed  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt.  It  has  its 
ground,  objectively,  in  the  fact  that  a  spiritual  world  exists,  and  in 
its  domain  an  eternal  truth  ;  subjectively,  in  the  disposition  and 
ability  of  man  to  rise  from  the  visible  to  the  invisible,  and  to  recog- 
nise and  accept  as  such  that  which  within  him  manifests  itself  to 
him  as-divine.  From  a  Christian,  and  especially  from  a  Reformed 
Christian  standpoint,  this  possibility  has  throughout  all  time  been 
either  presupposed  or  directly  stated,  with  the  highest  right 

1.  The  investigation  to  which  Dogmatics  devotes  itself  would  never  have 
required  to  be  set  on  foot,  if  there  were  no  spiritual  world  whatever,  or  if 
at  least  there  were  no  possibility  of  rising  to  its  domain.     This  indeed  has 
been,  and  is  still,  actually  asserted  in  various  ways ;  and   on  this  ground 
Theology,  as  the  "  science  of  nescience,"  has  been  rejected  by  the  system- 
atic   supporters  of  Materialism,  Scepticism,   Empiricism,    Positivism,  etc. 
The  whole  history  of  religion  and  philosophy  may  be  called  a  constant 
struggle  between  Pyrrhonism  on  the  one  hand,  and  Dogmatism  on  the 
other.     It  is,  then,  the  continuing  duty  of  Dogmatics  to  maintain  against 
all  these  attacks  its  right  to  existence  and  to  action. 

2.  A  thorough  defence  of  that  right  would  require  an  express  criticism  of 
the  above-named  tendencies  of  thought,  accompanied  by  the  presentation 
of  an  elaborate  theory  of  the  human  capacity  for  knowledge.     These  sub- 
jects, however,  do  not  come  within  the  scope  of  the  prolegomena  of   Dog- 
matics.    The  one  is  the  vocation  of  the  Christian  dogmatist ;  the  other,  of 
the  teacher  of  Metaphysics  and  Psychology.     The  first,  keeping  strictly 
within  the  limits  of  his  science,  must  rest  content  with  a  short  defence  of 

B  2 


4  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

his  principles,  of  which  his  further  investigation  is  alike  the  natural  result 
and  the  best  justification. 

3  The  folly  of  all  dogmatical  investigation  would  be  unquestioned, 
if  those  who  are  in  principle  opposed  to  it  succeeded  in  maintaining 
their  own  standpoint  against  the  opposition  which  has  been  encoun- 
tered by  them  in  every  age.  Hitherto,  however,  they  have  had  so  little 
success,  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  greatest  difficulties  have  shown  them- 
selves, not  on  the  dogmatical,  but  on  the  anti-dogmatical  side.  Materialism, 
indeed,  can  explain  neither  the  origin  of  organic  life  as  a  whole,  nor  the 
unity  and  continuity  of  the  human  self-consciousness,  nor  the  moral  power 
of  conscience.  Scepticism  destroys  itself  in  principle  as  soon  as  it  formu- 
lates and  proves ;  indeed,  the  absolute  certainty  of  uncertainty  is  a  purely 
dogmatic  expression.  "  Le  Scepticisme,  quand  il  commence  a  raisonner, 
se  mord  dans  la  queue "  (Vinet).  If  the  empirical  philosophy  from  its 
standpoint  only  knows  that  which  comes  within  the  reach  of  experience, 
yet  until  now  the  proof  has  never  been  given  us  that  in  the  domain  of  the 
spiritual  sciences  the  same  method  exclusively  and  unconditionally  applies 
as  in  the  domain  of  natural  science.  If  the  supra-sensuous  lies  beyond 
the  reach  of  our  experience,  it  does  not  yet,  for  this  reason,  lie  beyond  the 
limits  of  our  knowledge.  Positivism,  lastly,  notwithstanding  the  arrogance 
with  which  it  puts  forth  its  claims,  is  psychologically  so  superficial,  and  has 
taken  so  little  notice  of  the  deepest  aspirations  of  humanity,  that  it  is 
oppressed  with  no  less  difficulties  than  Materialism  itself,  in  which  it  inevi- 
tably ends. 

4.  In  opposition  to  these  morbid  phenomena  in  the  domain  of  thought, 
Dogmatics  proceeds  with  a  good  conscience,  from  the  supposition  of  the 
reality  of  a  world  higher  than  this  visible  one.    True,  the  existence  of  meta- 
physical thought  cannot  be  demonstrated  by  like  evidence,  as  a  mathe- 
matical proposition.     "  Geometrica  pingi  atque  oculis  subjici  possunt ;  hsec 
autem,  de  quibus  hie  dicimus  non  ita,  sed  attenta  consideratione  paulatim 
magis  intelliguntur  "  (Melancthon).     And  yet  closer  consideration  shows 
this  is  sufficient,  partly  from  the  original  and  indestructible  consciousness 
of  mankind  (testimonum  animi) ;  partly  from  nature,  whose  mysteries  and 
questions  find  their  satisfactory  solution  only  in  a  realm  higher  than  her 
own ;  partly,  in  fine,  from  history  and   experience,   which    always   point 
further  than  to  merely  natural  results  of  final  causes.     He  who  here  speaks 
of  hypothesis  must  at  least  allow  that  without  it  an  infinity  of  questions 
would  remain  unexplained,  whilst,  on   the  other  hand,  by   its  help  the 
greatest  enigma  is  solved  to  a  remarkable  degree.     He,  on  the  other  hand, 
who  regards  the  entire  idea  of  God,  and  everything  connected  with  this 
idea,  as  a  fantastical  illusion,  and  considers  the  proper  secret  of  Theology 
to  lie  in  Anthropology  (Feuerbach),  declares,  in  other  words,  all  mankind 
to  be  mad,  and  arbitrarily  puts  aside  all  the  other  questions,  which  he  is 
rendered  utterly  unable  to  answer. 

5.  God  and  truth  are  one.     Can  truth  in  this  sphere,  though  not  com- 
pletely, yet  in  some  degree,  be  known?     Certainly  not,  if  man  is  destitute 

>f  all  power  of  rising  from  the  visible  to  the  invisible.  We  cannot,  how- 
ever, possibly  in  seriousness  dispute  this  power  in  a  rational  and  moral 
being.  "War  nicht  das  Auge  sonnenhaft,  wie  konnten  wir  das  Licht 


ITS  POSSIBILITY.  5 

erblicken?  Lebt'  nicht  in  uns  des  Gottes  eig'ne  Kraft,  wie  konnt'uns 
Gottliches  entzucken?"  (Gothe).  The  divine  cannot  be  entirely  com- 
prehended, but,  notwithstanding,  it  can  be  apprehended;  it  cannot  be 
completely  known,  but  yet  can  he  spiritually  seen ;  it  cannot  be  per- 
fectly attained,  but  yet  it  can  be  approached,  in  consequence  of  the 
law  of  affinity,  which  makes  like  seek  like.  The  ceaseless  feeling  of 
man  after  God1  may  lead  to  an  endless  failing,  but  yet  it  testifies  to  a 
compulsion  of  nature,  which  is  one  with  its  inner  being.  Mind,  intel- 
lect, and  conscience  cannot  rest  so  long  as  they  find  no  rest  in  God. 
Independent  of  all  reasoning  and  observation,  man  seeks  his  God  as 
the  sunflower  the  sun,  the  hart  the  waterbrooks,  and  the  infant  its 
mother's  breast.  The  organ  by  which  man  satisfies  as  much  as  possible 
this  impulse  of  nature  is  reason,  as  distinguished  from  intellect,  the  faculty 
of  ideas,  not  separate  from,  but  most  closely  united  with,  the  heart  and 
conscience.  A  denial  of  this  faculty  must  inevitably  lead  in  philosophy  to 
nominalism  and  scepticism  ;  in  theology,  to  a  blind  belief  in  authority.  If 
man  is  utterly  unable  to  rise  to  the  invisible,  he  must  mechanically  bow  to 
that  which  from  without  is  enforced  on  him  as  revelation,  unless  he  has  an 
inner  criterion,  by  means  of  which  he  can  properly  distinguish  truth  and 
falsehood  in  this  domain. 

6.  It  is  evident  that  this  recognition  of  the  existence  and  relative  right 
of  a  natural  knowledge  of  God,  hereafter  to  be  more  closely  defined  and 
proved,  is  really  biblical  and  Christian ;  for  not  only  do  Israel's  sacred 
singers  and  seers,2  but  Jesus  Himself,3  and  His  apostles,  and  Paul  specially,* 
presuppose  and  justify  it.  The  entire  existence  of  Theologia  Naturally  as 
distinguished  from  Acquisila  or  Rmelata,  is  founded  on  this  supposition, 
and  even  in  these  days  we  must  of  necessity  be  on  our  guard,  so  that  we 
neither  slight  it  nor  exaggerate  it.  But  we  must  never  forget  that  the 
knowledge  of  God,  which  for  these  reasons  we  deem  to  be  possible,  pos- 
sesses one  peculiarity \  which  we  at  once  proceed  to  discuss  at  greater  length. 

Comp.  J.  T.  BECK,  Eiuleitung  in  das  System  der  Christl.  LeJire  (1838),  i.  p.  2  ;  K. 
SEDERHOI.M,  Die  E-wigen  Tiiatsachen  (1845)  ;  Ui  Kiel,  Gott  und  die  A'atur  (1862),  vol. 
i.  ch.  iv.;  E.  NAVILLE,  La  Vie  eterndle  (1862),  p.  45,  etc.  A.  CONTE,  Le  Camposante 
de  Pise,  ou  le  Scepticisme  (1863) ;  F.  FABRI,  Brieje  ge  en  den  Alaterialismus  (1864) ; 
P.  JANET,  Dn  Materialisme  contemporain,  Dutch  translation  (1865)  ;  E.  DE  PRESSENSE, 
Jesus  Christ,  son  Temps,  etc.,  English  translation  (1866),  pp.  I — 68;  GUIZOT,  Medita- 
tions (1866),  ii.,  p.  145.  Compare,  concerning  the  rights  of  a  natural  knowledge  of  God, 
in  connection  with  the  principles  of  doctrine  developed  at  the  Reformation,  J.  H. 
SCHOLTEN,  Leer,  der  H.  A',,  4th  ed.  (1861),  i.,  p.  270,  etc.  ;  J.  J.  VAN  TOORENEN- 
BERGEN,  Bydragen  tot  vei'klaring  em.  van  de  leer  d.  H.K.  (1852),  i.,  p.  6,  etc.  Special 
notice  must  be  taken  of  Calv.  Inst.  Rel.  Chr.  i.,  cap.  iii.,  etc. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Importance  of  this  investigation.  —  Distinction  between  the  work  of  Christian 
Dogmatics  and  that  of  the  general  philosophy  of  religion.—  By  whom,  in  earlier  and 
later  times,  has  the  possibility  of  all  Dogmatics  been  denied  or  doubted  ? — On  wha 

1  Acts  xvii.  27.  3  Matt.  vi.  22,  etc. 

2  Ps.  xix.  2 — 4;  Isa.  xl.  26.  4  Rom.  i.  19,  20;  ii.   14,  15. 


6  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

Pomd,  »d  »•„.,  r»  if«-  to  ?t£^£^!5W'£K!±5 

fSSsm,  Em>inc«.»,  l>* ,,;v,;m  » f  *e  p ™s »t  ccn^  a][  c  d 


Ottl'nv.-. I  •  ••II-      tViinrrc     1C      UllStalllCCl     aUillKSl.     «"'      lu»-^>—          ^-.-v. 

under  which  the  reality  of  invisible   things  is  su  *        ^  ^  fa         d   th<j 

of  the  representation  ^*  ^V^f  t'he  ;hims  Of  a  natural  knowledge 

'  '      of  the  Reformation. — Over- 


KtimatioCn°of 'uiose  claims  possible  and  dangerous. 


SECTION  III.— ITS  PECULIARITY. 

The  truth,  to  the  investigation  of  which  "  Christian  Dogmatics  " 
devotes  itself,  belongs  to  the  domain  of  a  world  which  is  only 
beheld  by  the  eye  of  faith.  Though  we  may  therefore  speak  with 
a  very  proper  meaning  of  a  science  concerning  God  and  Divine 
things,  this  science  is,  and  always  remains,  a  science  of  faith,  i.e., 
a  science  which  is  born  of  faith,  and  strives  to  attain  to  a  clear 
insight  into  its  subject-matter  and  ground,  and  possesses  that 
definite  decree  of  certainty  which  is  the  only  possible  one  in  this 
sphere  of  thought,  but  is  also  perfectly  sufficient  The  ignoring  of 
this  its  peculiarity  can  only  be  fraught  with  fatal  effects  ;  the 
recognition  of  it,  on  the  other  hand,  with  the  most  beneficial 
results. 

1.  Religious  truth  (d\i$0«a)as  little  falls  within  the  reach  of  perception 
by  the  senses,  as  it  can  be  produced  by  reason  out  of  itself.     The  invisible 
world  only  reveals  itself  to  the  spiritual  eye,  and  on  this  ground  the  peculiar 
character  of  our  science  can  scarcely  be  denoted  by  a  better  name  than 
that  of  the  science  of  faith.     This  faith,  considered  as  a  whole,  is  firmly 
convinced  of  the  reality  of  "  things  not  seen."6     "  It  is  not  indefinitely 
opposed  to  knowledge ;  but  to  sight,  as  well  as  to  doubt.     In  its  inmost 
essence  it  is  confidence,  fixed  in  the  heart,  yet  in  such  a  manner  that  by  it 
is  determined,  not  merely  the  conviction  of  the  intellect,  but  also  the  bent 
oi  the  will.     It  embraces,  therefore,  nothing  less  than  the  whole  inner  life, 
and  from  this  as  a  centre  exercises  a  most  powerful  influence  on  the 
character  and  conduct  of  man. 

2 .  We  see  already  in  what  degree  we  may  speak  of  a  science  concerning 
God  and  Divine  things.     Were  the  word  wetenschap  (knowledge)  used  in 
the  sense  of  "  exact  science,"  in  order  to  denote  that  which  is  so  positively 
proved  that  no  sound  mind  can  entertain  any  doubt  about  it,  it  would  be 
here  surely  out  of  place.      It  is  different  when   by  science  we   mean 

8  Heb.  xi.  i. 


ITS  PECULIARITY.  7 

accurate,  well-founded,  and  well-ordered  knowledge,  in  whatever  manner 
that  knowledge  be  acquired.  In  this  case,  indeed,  the  knowledge  which  is 
gained  as  a  result  of  faith  may  certainly  bear,  with  no  less  right,  though  in 
a  wider  sense,  the  name  of  science,  than  that  which  is  the  result  of  reasoning 
and  observation.  The  eye  of  faith '  sees  the  truth,  and  the  believer  knows 
what  he  has  seen. 

3.  In  the  most  extended  use  of  the  word  it  is  true  of  our  science  that  it 
is  the  child  of  faith,  and  without  a  principle  of  personal  faith  it  is  utterly 
inconceivable.     Faith,  first  of  all  in  ourselves,  and  the  original,  unchange- 
able utterances  of  our  self-consciousness ;  a  confidence,  in  other  words, 
that  the  inner  voice  of  the  heart  and  conscience  of  humanity  does  not 
deceive  it.     But  then  it  is  also  faith  in  that  God  of  whom  our  inner  con- 
sciousness testifies,  and  of  whose   Being  and  Will  we  shall  never  know 
anything  until  we  have  begun  to  believe   in  His  existence.     Above  all, 
belief  in  Him  in  whom  truth  was  personally  revealed  and  manifested,  and 
who  grants  to  His  own,  first  to  behold  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of 
God,  and  afterwards,  as  far  as  is  possible  and  necessary,  to  know  them.6 

4.  Religious  and  Christian  faith,  once  originated,  cannot  rest  until   it 
attains  to  a  clear  insight  of  its  subject-matter  and  ground  ;  faith  seeks 
understanding  (Fides  qutzrit  intellectual}.     The  believing  one  (TTUTTIKOS)  will 
of  necessity,  as  such,  become  the  knowing  one  (yvucm^).     "  Faith  will 
not  remain   without  knowledge ;  for   it  is  in   the  very  nature  of  freeing, 
living  faith  to  generate  of  itself  both  action  and  knowledge "  (Wieseler). 
This  intimate  coherence  of  faith  and  knowledge  is  constantly  and  expressly 
referred  to  in  the  Gospel  itself.7     The  Alexandrine  school  did   special 
justice  to   this   truth,  though   on   the   other  hand  it  too  often  confused 
Theology  and    Philosophy.      The  grand   declaration   of  Tertullian  (cum 
crcdimus,  nil  desuleramus  ultra  credere],  that  the  believer  requires  nothing 
but  his  faith,   proclaims  a  great  truth,  which  cannct,  however,  lastingly 
hinder  the  pressure  of  faith  towards  knowledge.      In  opposition  to  this  the 
principle  of  Anselm,   through  faith  to  understanding  (per  fidcm  ad  intel- 
lectum]  maintains  its  unconditional  claims;  though  we  must  never  forget 
that  it  is  not  belief  in  a  traditional  infallible  dogma,  but  only  belief  in  God, 
and  His  revelation  in  Christ,  which  is  the  principle  of  Christian  dogmatic 
science.      With  this  last  limitation   we  may  accept  the  maxim  that  the 
most  perfect  faith  leads  to  the  most  certain  knowledge. 

5.  Dogmatics,  as  the  science  of  faith,  has  its  own  peculiar  degree  of 
certainty.    Its  subject-matter  cannot  be  demonstrated  as  a  palpable  fact  or  a 
mathematical  proposition.    In  our  domain  we  must  be  contented  with  inter- 
nal evidence,  obtained,  not  by  the  method  of  demonstration,  but  by  that  ot 
proof  and  assertion  (vindicatie].     We  have  not  here,  however,  certainty  in  a 
less  degree  than  elsewhere,  but  rather  certainty  of  a  different  kind.     I  may 
be  as  firmly  convinced  of  what  I  believe  as  of  what  I  know,  but  I  am  so  in 
a  different  manner,  and  generally  on  different  grounds.     It  is  therefore  not 
correct  to  contrast  the  certainty  of  knowledge  with  the  probability  of  faith, 


6  Matt.  xiii.  u. 

7  Luke  x.  21  ;  I  Cor.  xiii.  12,  13  ;  xiv.  2O ;  I  John  ii.  20  ;  v.  13. 


8  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

as  if  we  were  contrasting  a  higher  with  a  lower.  The  believer,  too,  has 
more  than  probability  ;8  he  is  as  certain  of  that  which  he  truly  believes,  as 
of  his  own  existence.  "  Faith  is  by  no  means  a  lower  degree  of  certainty ; 
and  the  believer,  as  such,  is  not  more  certain  of  anything  than  the  object 
of  his  faith.  The  expression  Jch  glaube  es  nur  must  seem  strange  to  the 
really  believing"  (Erdmann).  And  yet  this  certainty  cannot  always  show 
itself,  much  less  impart  itself  to  others,  for  this  very  reason,  that  it  is 
nothing  less,  but  also  nothing  more,  than  a  certainty  of  faith.  Exact 
science  is  a  knowledge  of  the  intellect,  which  may  be  imparted  to  every 
man  of  sound  mind.  Faith  is  a  confidence  of  the  heart,  which  we  can  only 
affirm  and  justify  for  those  in  whom  the  moral  condition  for  the  recognition 
of  the  truth  is  to  be  found.9  Here,  if  anywhere,  we  see  the  deep  meaning 
of  the  requirement  that  we  must  will  to  be  able  to  believe.  (Nemo  credit, 
nisivolcns.)  The  representation  and  recommendation  of  the  science  of 
faith  serves  only  to  lead  all  those  who  have  the  capacity  thereto,  in  like 
manner  to  faith,  and  by  this  means  to  knowledge.  Divine  truth  cannot  be 
brought  to  any  one  by  external  demonstrations ;  it  proves  and  justifies 
itself  by  itself  to  the  spirit  capable  of  receiving  it.  We  must  have  it,  to 
know  it ;  we  must  experience  it,  to  recognise  it.  Through  faith  we  under- 
stand, and  without  it  we  understand  nothing  here.10 

6.  The  exact  estimation  of  Christian  Dogmatics  as  a  science  of  faith  is 
of  great  importance.  A  misconception  of  this  truth  must  necessarily  lead  to 
misunderstanding  and  disappointment.  Many  a  one  in  this  matter  desires 
the  same  clearness  and  certainty  as  he  obtains,  e.g.,  in  natural  science, 
while  he  forgets  that  he  is  here  moving  in  quite  another  sphere  ;  just  as  if 
the  metaphysical  must  be  measured  by  the  same  rule  as  the  physical ;  and 
1  >ogmatics  would  stand  so  much  higher,  if  it  were  able  to  demonstrate  its 
propositions  to  every  one,  without  caring  what  his  moral  condition  may  be. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  recognition  of  this  peculiar  character  of  the  science 
will  lead  to  its  just  estimate  and  fitting  study.  It  is,  as  a  science  of  faith, 
as  indispensable  and  as  venerable  as  this  faith  itself;  but  it  also  makes 
upon  its  student  comprehensive  and  suitable  demands.  The  more  it  is 
considered  from  the  standpoint  we  have  denoted,  the  less  will  faith  and 
knowledge  be  separated  or  confounded  ;  the  more,  on.  the  other  hand,  will 
they  be  reconciled  and  united.  Thus  Dogmatics  fulfils  its  task  by 
justifying  as  reasonable  what  faith  has  already  recognised  as  real ;  and  the 
ideal  is  attained,  which  a  father  of  the  Church  has  before  conceived,  "  Ut 
ea,  quae  fidei  firmitate  jam  tenes,  etiam  rationis  luce  conspicias." 

_Comp.  J.  MUI.LER,  Ueber  Glauben  und  Wissen.  Deutsche  Zeitschrift  (1853)  No.  20— 22; 
J  AGER,  Ueber  die  Natur  der  theolog:schen  Erkeimtniss,  a  critical  and  historical  Essay  in  the 
Jahrbuch  fiir  -wissensch.  Theol.,  1857,  I  ;  I.  KoSTLIN,  Der  Glaube,  sein  Wesen,  Grund, 
und  Gegenstand,  1856 ;  S.  HoEKSTRA,  Bronnen  en  Grondslagen  van  het  Godsdienst 
Geloof  (1864),  p.  26.  etc.;  R.  GRAU,  Der  Glaube,  als  die  hbchste  Vernunft,  and  PEIP, 
Ueber  die  Grenzt-n,  die  Afitte,  und  die  Spitze  des  Beweises, — two  treatises  of  the  greatest 
value,  which  appeared  in  the  Apologetisch  Zeitschrift  der  Beweis  des  Glaubens,  1865  — 
1867. 

8  Cf.  Job  xix.  25  j  2  Tim.  i.  12 ;  Rom.  viii.  38. 

9  I  John  iv.  6. 
M  Heb.  xi.  3. 


ITS   PLACE. 


POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Nature,  object,  ground  for,  and  reality  of  religious  belief  in  general. — Explanation  of 
Heb.  xi.  I,  comp.  with  2  Cor.  v.  7. — Can  we  speak  of  a  science  concerning  God  and 
Divine  things,  or  only  of  a  science  of  religion? — The  conclusion  to  be  drawn  with 
regard  to  the  nil  desideramtu  ultra  credere  of  Tertullian. — Historical  elucidation  and 
necessary  limitation  of  the  principle  of  Anselm. — To  what  extent,  and  under  what 
conditions,  is  certainty  in  the  sphere  of  faith  possible? — Theoretical  and  practical 
importance  of  the  result  thus  obtained. 


SECTION  IV. — ITS  PLACE. 

Christian  Dogmatics,  as  a  science  of  faith,  possessing  its  own 
principles  and  method,  lays  claim  to  an  independent  and  honour- 
able place  in  the  domain  of  human  thought.  It  stands  as  an 
historical-philosophical  science  in  the  Encyclopaedia  of  Theology, 
at  the  head  of  Systematic  Theology;  and,  in  conjunction  with 
Christian  Ethics,  furnishes  its  principal  subject-matter.  Dis- 
tinguished, though  hardly  to  be  separated,  from  Christian  ethics, 
it  receives  the  most  important  services  from  exegetical  and 
Historical  Theology,  and  on  its  rt  applies  these  to  every  part 
of  Practical  Theology. 

1.  He  who  acknowledges  that  faith,  as  well  as  reasoning  and  observa- 
tion, can  lead  the  way  to  exact,  well-grounded,  and  well-ordered  knowledge, 
must  also  grant  to  the  science  of  faith  the  right  to  an  independent  place 
in   the   boundless   circle   of  human   science.      That  place    may  at   the 
same  time  be  a  most  honourable,  since  the  answer  to  the  final  questions 
of  every  investigation,  whether  directly  or  indirectly,  cannot   be  found 
elsewhere  than  in  the  theological  domain.      Try  the  experiment  with  the 
science  of  law,  history,  natural  philosophy,  and  psychology,  and  see  what 
it  is  without,  and  what  with,  a  belief  in  a  living  and  self-revealing  God. 
That  which  is  the  condition  for  all  knowledge  cannot  possibly  be  excluded 
from  the  domain  of  knowledge.     We  might  with  the  same  fairness  relegate 
all  philosophy  to  the  sphere  of  illusion ;  but  we  know  that  the  key  of 
physics,  too,  is  to  be  found  in  the  domain  of  metaphysics.      The  path  of 
denial  must  here  lead  inevitably  to  Materialism. 

2.  He  who,  in  general,  regards  Theology  as  a  science,  will  not  dispute 
the  right   of  Dogmatics  to  existence.      The   continual  cry,    "No  more 
Dogmatics,"  is  the  utterance  of  the  veriest  superficiality.      It  is  as  if  we 
said  to  the  natural  philosopher,  No  more  physics ;  to  the  mathematician, 
No  more  mathematics  !     The  repugnance  of  many  to  Dogmatics  is  merely 
the  consequence  of  a  tacit  despair  of  the  existence  or  recognisability  of 


IO  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

objective  tnith.  Yet  this  repugnance  cannot  be  kept  up  where  the 
systematic  denial  of  all  Dogmatics  becomes  at  last  itself  a  dogma.  Dog- 
matics is  a  psychological  necessity ;  faith  cannot  cease  to  reflect  upon  its 
object ;  the  intellect  cannot  rest  before  it  has  found,  and  as  best  it  can 
expressed,  the  unity  of  this  conception.  It  is  not  easy  to  see  how  Theology 
as  a  science  could  exist  without  Dogmatics  (Hagenbach). 

3.  Some  (Schleiermacher  and   others)   incorrectly  place  Dogmatics  at 
the  head  of  Historical  Theology.      It  is  true  that  it  not  only  investigates 
what  is  held  as  truth,  but  what  must  be  held  as  such.    And  thus  the  exegete 
and  the  historian  must  have  already  accomplished  their  work  before  the 
dogmatist  can  think  of  his.     It  only  remains  a  question  whether,  in  regard 
to  Systematics,  dogmatical  science  must  be  separated  from  ethical  or  not. 

4.  The  separation  of  Dogmatics  and  Ethics,  after  a  previous  union  of 
long  duration,  prepared  by  Dannreus  and  M.    Amyraldus  in  the  seven- 
teenth  century,   completed    by   G.    Calixtus   (1634),    and    since    almost 
universally  recognised   and  maintained,  has  been  of  greater  service  to 
the  latter  than  to  the  former.     We  cannot  be  surprised  that  distinguished 
divines  of  the  present  century  have   opposed   by  word  and   deed   this 
separation.      (Schleiermacher,    to    a    certain    extent ;    specially    C.    J. 
Nitzsch,   Sartorius,   and  others.)     True   spiritual   knowledge   springs   in- 
deed from  the  womb  of  life  ;  and  'aX^eto  is   not  a  merely  metaphysical, 
but  ethical  and  practical  thing.     And  yet  we  acquiesce  more  readily  in  the 
actually  existing  separation,  since  along  with  unmistakable  difficulties  we 
meet  with  real  advantages.     The  two  sciences  are  so  rich  as  to  render  a 
separate  treatment  not  only  possible,  but  desirable.    And  so  the  separation 
of  the  two  is  important  enough  to  lead  to  a  division  of  labour.     Dogmatics 
has  to  do  with  the  doctrine  of  salvation,  Ethics  with  that  of  life  ;  the  first 
with   the  works  of  God,   the   second  with   the  vocation   of  men ;    the 
one  with   the   theoretical,   the   other  with   the  practical  side  of  truth. 
"  Dogmatics  and  Ethics  are  as  certainly  independent  sciences  as  God  and 
man  are  really  distinct.     It  is  only  a  standpoint,  such  as  that  of  Spinoza, 
which  can  dispute  the  independence  of  Ethics  by  the  side  of  Dogmatics." 
(Dorner.) 

5.  Dogmatics  must  not  dominate  over  Exegetical  and  Historical  in- 
vestigation, but  it  must  respect  the  complete  independence  of  both.     On 
the  other  hand,  it  has  a  preponderating  influence  on  Ethics  (as  Ethics  has 
on  it),  and  so  upon  every  part  of  Practical  Theology— that  is,  Homiletical, 
Liturgical,  Catechetical,  and  Pastoral.     This  is  almost  self-evident,  but  at 
the  same  time  proves  the  value  of  Dogmatics. 

Compare  the  best  known  Handbooks  of  Theol.  Encycl.  ;  the  article  "  Ethik,"  of 
DORM.R  m  Herzog.  R.  £.,  iv.,  p.  188,  etc.,  and  NITZSCH,  Syst.  der  Chr.  Lehr.,  6  Aufl., 
1851,  p.  4,  etc. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

By  whom,  and  with  what  right,  has  the  scientific  character  of  Theology,  and  specially 

D  )7ni!Lt'cs'  ,be?1  Denied  or  doubted  ?— Is  it  possible  and  desirable  to  remove  Dogmatics 

rom  the  1  heological  Encyclopaedia  ?—  History  of  the  separation  of  Dogmatics  and  Ethics. 

^  and  shadows  of  the  division  ;  criticism  of  the  later  attempts  at  a  renewed  union.— 

VVhat  service  -ioes  Dogmatics  gain  from  Exegetical  and  Historical  Theology  ?— What  are 

the  mutual  services  of  Dogmatics  and  Ethics,  and  of  all  Practical  Theology  ? 


ITS  VALUE.  II 


SECTION  V. — ITS  VALUE. 

From  the  nature  of  the  case,  Christian  Dogmatics  can  only  have 
a  relative  value,  since  we  cannot  call  any  development  of  the 
subject-matter  and  grounds  for  the  doctrines  of  salvation  an 
entirely  accurate  and  complete  expression  of  Christian  truth.  And 
yet  our  science  is  of  weighty  importance  for  every  thinking  member 
of  the  Church,  still  more  for  a  genuine  theologian,  most  of  all  for  a 
future  minister  of  the  Church  ;  and,  far  from  this  value  being 
diminished  or  done  away  with  in  these  times,  many  a  sign  of  the 
times  calls  for  its  progressive  study. 

1.  Just  as  faith  here  is  always  imperfect,  so  the  science  of  faith  must 
always  be  partial  too.11    This  consciousness  is  in  a  certain  degree  the  cross 
of  theology,  but  this  cross  becomes  alike  its  crown,  since  that  recognition 
of  its  limits   tells  of  self-knowledge,   promotes  humility,  and  inclines  to 
greater  caution.    This  is  specially  evident  when  we  compare  the  confessions 
of  the  most  celebrated  theologians  with  those  of  the  heroes  of  absolute 
knowledge.      Least  of  all  in  our  times  will   Dogmatics  spring  at  once 
full-grown  from  the  head  and  heart  of  its  priest,  as  Minerva  from  the  skull 
of  Jupiter. 

2.  The  relative  value   of  Dogmatics  is  nevertheless  indisputable  and 
essential.     No  one  can  do  without  it,  since  every  one  seeks  for  a  more  or 
less  formulated  expression  of  his  holiest  convictions.     For  the  theologian, 
specially,  no  other  branch  of  investigation  exceeds  this  in  value.     It  stands 
in  relation  to  the  others,  as  the  queen  to  her  retinue,  the  Sabbath  to  the 
other  days  of  the  week.     In  proportion  as  Dogmatism  may  be  dangerous, 
is  a  thorough  Dogmatics  indispensable.     The  pastor  and  teacher,  who  will 
teach  his  flock  with  blessing,  cannot  do  without  it.     It  is  necessary  for  him 
and  for  it  that  he  should   have  a  clear  consciousness  of  the  relation  in 
which  his  personal  convictions  stand  to  the  consciousness  of  the  Church's 
belief. 

3.  From  various  causes  we  may  say  that  the  present  time  is  as  unfavour- 
able as  possible  for  Christian  dogmatic  studies.     And  yet  these  studies  will 
be  among  the  means  by  which  many  a  suspicious  phenomenon  in  the 
domain   of  Church   and   science  will   be    combated    with   good  success. 
Moreover,  there  is  not  an  entire  absence  of  more  favourable  signs.     The 
powerlessness  of  negation  to  satisfy  the  deepest  wants  of  man  is  more 
evident  than  ever;    a  renewed  thirst  after  truth  exhibits  itself  in  varied 
ways  ;  the   striving  after  Church  Reformation,  at  the  same  time,  excites 
interest  in  the  investigation  of  her  creeds,  and  excellent  guides  appear  to 


u  i  Cor.  xiii.  9 — 12. 


12  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

give  us  light  for  the  prosecution  of  our  investigation.  Under  these 
circumstances,  "  Excelsior  "  is  for  the  student  of  science  more  than  an  idle 
cry. 

Comp.  H.  PLITT,  Evang.  Glaubensl.  (1863),  i.,  pp.  101 — 114;  A.  SCHWEITZER,  Ueber 
die  Entwerthung  der  Dogm. ,  Theol.  Stud.  u.  Kritik.  (1865),  iv.  See  also  the  complaint 
of  LI:THARDT,  at  the  end  of  the  preface  to  his  Compendium  der  Dogm,  (1865),  to  which 
we  might  add  the  voices  of  many  others. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Christian  Dogmatics  has  a  real  value,  even  because  it  announces  it  as  relative.  —  -Know- 
ledge in  part,  confessed  by  St.  Paul,  Augustine,  Anselm,  Pascal,  and  many  others. — In 
what  special  manner  is  the  indispensability  of  Christian  Dogmatics  shown  ? — By  what  is 
its  study  most  hindered  and  limited  in  these  days  ? — What  signs  of  the  times,  on  the  other 
hand,  call  more  strongly  for  this  study  ? 


CHAPTER  II. 

SOURCES  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 


SECTION  VI.— GENERAL  SURVEY. 

THE  question  as  to  the  sources  of  Christian  Dogmatics  is  of  pre- 
ponderating importance,  and  has  at  divers  times  been  answered  in 
divers  ways.  From  the  standpoint  of  the  Christian  Reformer,  an 
immediate  distinction  between  the  primary  and  subsidiary  source 
(fons  primarius  et  secundarius)  is  at  once  required.  The  estimate 
of  Christ  Himself,  as  the  Fountain-head,  properly  so  called,  must 
precede  the  consideration  of  these  two,  and  must  also  be  joined 
with  the  investigation,  whether,  and  how  far,  the  Christian  con- 
sciousness must  be  accepted  as  one  of  the  sources  of  our  science. 

1.  The  subject-matter  of  this  chapter  is  naturally  closely  connected  with 
that  of  the  preceding.     He  who  knows  the  character  of  a  science,  sees 
himself  naturally  led  to  inquire  after  its  sources.     Even  where  "  credendo 
scire"  is  our  motto,  the  value  of  the  investigation  into  the  condition  of  its 
sources  is  an  independent  one.      We  do  not,  however,  here  speak  of  the 
sources  of  religious  faith  in  general,  but  specially  of  those  from  which  the 
knowledge   of    Christian    doctrine  is  derived.       The   first-named    inquiry 
belongs  to  General  Religious  Philosophy  and  Anthropology,  the  last  to  an 
Introduction  to  the  Christian  system  of  doctrine. 

2.  In  the  investigation  of  the  doctrine  of  salvation  men  have  not  always 
drawn  from  the  same  sources.     In  the  first  century  we  may  say  that  the 
Spirit  of  Christ  was  the  pure  fount  of  the  knowledge   of  truth  for  His 
Church.1     Since,  however,  that  Spirit  was  not  given  in  like  measure  to  all, 
and  was,  besides,  soon  intermixed  with  the  spirit  of  the  world,  man  soon 
required  a  source  of  knowledge  external  to  himself.     This  was  found  at 

1  I  John  ii.  20,  27. 


I4  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

first  in  tradition  (§  xl.) ;  in  after  days,  when  the  canon  was  finally  closed, 
in  Holy  Scripture,  specially  in  the  New  Testament.  Scripture  and  tradition 
were  now  regarded  as  two  streams,  flowing  side  by  side,  and  sprung  from 
the  same  source.  In  controversy  with  heretics  an  appeal  was  made  to 
both  but  the  increasing  influence  of  the  hierarchy  soon  gave  occasion  to 
the  elevation  of  the  authority  of  the  constantly  living  above  that  of  the 
once  for  all  written,  word.  Scholasticism  supported  tradition  with  all  its 
powers,  and  asserted  the  right  of  the  Church  to  pronounce  from  time  to 
time  new  dogmas.  A  Raymond  of  Sabunde  (i436)»  who  P^ced  the  book 
of  nature  on  a  par  with  the  Bible,  was  an  extraordinary  exception. 
Mysticism,  on  the  other  hand,  while  it  did  not  completely  neglect 
Scripture,  yet  placed  a  misty  feeling,  or  an  immediate  intuition  of  the  truth, 
either  on  a  par  with  or  above  it.  The  Reformation,  while  avoiding  the 
one-sidedness  of  both  schools,  returned  to  the  Scriptural  principle,  which 
the  Reformed  Churches  preferred  and  maintained  even  more  strongly  than 
the  Lutherans.  Even  by  the  latter  this  was  held,  (Artie.  Smalc.  ii.  2,) 
"  verbum  Deicondit  articulos  fidei,  et  praeterea  nemo,  ne  angelus  quidem." 
The  mys'ical  principles,  however,  soon  showed  their  presence  again  (Ana- 
baptists, Labadists,  Quakers,  etc.),  while,  on  the  other  side,  a  rationalistic 
tendency  (Socinians,  Deists,  etc.)  exhibited  an  increasing  power.  In 
opposition  to  both  these  parties,  the  orthodoxy  of  the  seventeenth  century 
often  co-ordinated  Scripture  and  creed,  until  the  pressure  of  a  more 
Biblical  tendency  led  to  the  more  definite  distinction  of  a  fans  primarius 
et  seciindarius.  Lessing  (t  1781)  had  to  remind  those  who  appealed  to  the 
Bible  in  defence  of  their  system,  that  tradition  was  even  older,  and  the 
Romish  Church  in  particular  clung  with  stiil  greater  hold  to  this  latter, 
after  it,  in  the  first  half  of  the  present  century,  hau  been  placed  in  a  more 
attractive  light  by  J.  A.  Mohler  (t  1838).  On  the  part  of  Protestantism, 
the  estimation  of  the  sources  of  Dogmatics  underwent  a  not  unimportant 
change,  chiefly  through  the  influence  of  F.  Schleiermacher  (f  1834). 

3.  This  historical  survey  of  the  estimation  of  the  sources  of  Dogmatics 
is  important,  since  it  shows,  on  the  one  side,  how  men  have  never  found  it 
possible  to  separate  themselves  entirely  from  Holy  Scripture ;  and  at  the 
same  time,  on  the  other,  how  men  again  have  constantly  felt  the  need  of 
placing  something  else,  whether  it  be  something  individual  (reason,  feeling, 
conscience),  or  something  collective  (tradition,  confession),  along  with  it. 
This  observation  justifies  the  distinction  between  primary  and  subordinate 
source,  which  is  further  required  by  the  nature  of  the  case,  and  the  spirit 
of  Protestantism  ;  whilst  also,  in  estimating  this  latter  in  the  present  time, 
a  closer  analysis  of  the  Christian  consciousness  must  not  be  omitted.  A 
glance  at  the  Fountain-head  must,  however,  precede  the  entire  investigation. 

Compare  specially,  in  addition  to  the  other  handbooks,  A.  D.  C.  TWESTEN,  Vorle- 
sungen  iiofr  Dogm.  (1838),  i.,  p.  265,  sqq. ;  G.  BOON,  Diss.  Theol.  de  Dogm.  C/irist.fontibus, 
eonimque  usu  (1860),  i. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

The  necessity,  extent,  and  course  of  the  investigation  of  the  sources  of  Christian  Dog- 
matics.—Whence  are  we  to  denote  the  change  which  has  taken  place,  in  the  course  of 
time,  in  the  choice  of  the  sources  which  have  been  consulted  in  preference  ? — Have  we 
not  enough  in  the /arts  frimartus  alone? 


THE  FOUNTAIN-HEAD.  15 


SECTION  VII. — THE  FOUNTAIN-HEAD,   CHRIST. 

No  one  can  be  the  Fountain-head  for  the  investigation  of  Chris- 
tian Dogmatics,  but  He  who  is 'its  principal  subject-matter,  and 
who  is  not  only  the  faithful  witness,  but  Himself  the  highest 
revelation  of  truth  in  the  domain  of  religion.  True  Dogmatics  is 
thus,  from  its  nature,  Christo-centric ;  and  nothing  in  regard  to 
the  doctrine  of  salvation  can  be  acknowledged  as  truth,  that  is  in 
irreconcilable  contradiction  with  the  word  and  spirit  of  Christ,  the 
King  of  truth. 

1.  The  need  of  a  higher  unity  furnishes  the  reason  for  considering  first 
the  Fountain-head.      We  have  to  deal  with  different  sources  of  varying 
value  ;  where  then  is  the  point  from  which  all  proceed  ?     "  Certum,  pro- 
priumque  fidei  catholics  fundamentum  Christus  est"  (Augustine).     Every- 
thing which  we  here  presuppose  concerning  the  person  of  the  Lord  must  of 
course  be  afterwards  properly  attested  and  developed. 

2.  The  representation  of  Christ  as   the   Fountain-head  is  in  complete 
agreement  with   the   letter  and  spirit  of  the  writings  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment.    Jesus  Himself  declares  that  He  is  the  truth,2  and  is  confessed  by 
His  apostles  as  its  best  interpreter  and  witness.8     He  is  the  ruler  of  the 
religious  domain,  considered  in  its  widest  sense.     The  reference  to  this 
source  accords  entirely  with  the  historical  character  of  revelation  (§  32), 
and  is  never  disavowed  without  real  injury. 

3.  The  claim    that  Christian   Dogmatics  shall  be  Christo-centric,  does 
not  denote  that  the  Christology  must  therefore  be  treated  of  first  of  all ;  on 
the  contrary,  there  are  preponderating  difficulties  in  this  method.     But  this 
is  the  idea,  that  everything  which  Dogmatics  has  to  teach  concerning  God, 
man,  the  way  of  salvation,  etc.,  must  be  viewed  by  the  light  which  streams 
forth  from  Christ  as  centre.     This  proceeds  from  His  exalted  character, 
and  is  also  contained  in  the  apostolic  statement  in  Colossians  ii.  3.     The 
most  celebrated  confessions  of  all  ages  are  marked  by  this  character,  and 
the  best  dogmatists  of  our  own  century  place  it  constantly  more  in  the 
foreground.     (Liebner,  Lange,  Thomasius,  and  many  others.)     Christ,  as 
the  highest  revelation  of  God,  must  also  be  to  the  dogmatist  the  light  of  his 
science.4     As  the  King  of  truth  is  the  head  of  the  Church,  so  is  He  the 
heart  of  Christian  Dogmatics.    The  so-called  Modern  Theology  is  therefore 
already  condemned  in  principle,  since   Christ  has  either  no  place  or  a 
very  unimportant  one  in  its  system,  which  exhibits  an  anthropo-centric 
character. 

4.  That  which  is  Aniichristian  must,  as  such,  in  the  dogmatic  sphere,  be 


2  John  xiv.  6  ;  xviii.  37. 

8      T      1  •        SO  _      T1!..-        __! 


John  vi.  68  ;  I  Tim.  vi.  13  ;  Rev.  i.  5. 
*  Ps.  xxxvi.  9. 


j6  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

necessarily  rejected  as  untrue.  Dogmatics  can  indeed  proclaim  a  truth, 
which  does  not  exclusively  exhibit  a  Christian  character  (e.g.  the  doctrine 
of  the  creation,  or  of  the  spirit-world).  Anything,  however,  which  is  in 
direct  contradiction  with  the  word  and  spirit  of  Christ,  bears  on  itself  the 
brand  of  entire  reprobation.  To  the  saying  of  the  old  sophist,  ndvrw 
nirpov  b  &v0pu*ot  (man  is  the  measure  of  all  things),  the  Christian  dog- 
matist replies,  ndvTur  ptrpov  b  X/JWTO'S,  or,  if  preferable,  b  0e6j  tv  Xpwry 
(Christ,  or  God  in  Christ,  is  the  measure  of  all  things).  "To  show 
itself  as  an  authorised  element  in  the  connexion  of  Christian  Dogmatics, 
every  dogmatical  proposition  must  prove  its  own  connexion  with  the  events, 
words,  and  deeds  of  Christ.  So  it  is  Christ  upon  whom  every  truth  of 
dogmatical  propositions  finally  rests.  Is  there  still  anything  beside  Him, 
which  has  the  power  to  be  the  ground  of  the  dogmas,  and  the  foundation 
of  their  proof?  This  power  must  spring  from  Christ,  and  rest  on  its  con- 
nexion with  Him."  (J.  Miiller,  R.  E.,  iii.,  p.  440.) 

Comp.  TH.  A.  LIEBNER,  Die  Chr.  Dogm.  aus  dem  Chrutol.  Prindp.  dargestellt  (1849), 
i.,  p.  4,  etc.  ;  B.  TER  HAAR,  Oratio  de  Histor.  Rel.  Chr.  indole,  hodie  nimis  spretd 
(1860);  J.  J.  VAN  OOSTERZEE,  Het  licht  onzer  Kennis  (1869).  For  many  years  the 
Groningen  school  in  Holland  has  in  its  way  set  expressly  in  the  foreground  the  truth 
which  we  have  here  stated. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Is  it  not  sufficient  to  descend  into  one's  self,  in  order  to  find  the  highest  truth  ? — Christ, 
the  highest  revelation  of  truth,  according  to  His  own  testimony,  and  according  to  that  of 
the  Church  in  all  ages. — Closer  definition  and  defence  of  the  Christo-centric  character 
of  Dogmatics. — The  meaning  of  Colossians  ii.  3,  comp.  ver.  9. — The  distinction  between 
anti-christian,  .extra-Christian,  pro-christian,  and  half-christian,  in  the  domain  of  truth. 


SECTION  VIII.— HOLY  SCRIPTURE. 

No  certain  knowledge  of  the  doctrine  of  salvation  without 
Christ ;  no  clear  knowledge  of  Christ  without  the  books  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments.  So  with  the  fullest  right  the  Reformed 
Church  in  particular  clings  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  especially  those 
of  the  New  Testament,  as  the  principal  source  and  touchstone  of 
truth  (fans  primarius)  in  the  Christian  religious  domain.  Those 
of  the  Old  Testament  can  therefore  neither  unconditionally  be 
placed  on  a  level  with  them,  nor  can  they  be  separated  from  them 
much  less  can  they  be  entirely  overlooked.  In  general,  the' 
comparative  value  of  the  different  parts  of  Holy  Scripture  for 
dogmatic  investigation  depends  upon  the  more  or  less  direct 
relation  in  which  they  stand  to  the  person  and  work  of  Christ. 


HOLY  SCRIPTURE.  17 

1.  As  a  witness  to  Christ  (§  7),  Holy  Scripture,  though  not  indeed  the 
only  one,  is  by  far  the  most  important  source  of  our  knowledge  of  the  doc- 
trine of  salvation.     As  such  it  must  hereafter  maintain  its  right  in  the 
express  investigation  to  which  it  will  be  submitted  in  the  treatment  of 
Bibliology  (§§  35 — 41).     Here  we  can  only  point  out  the  place  which  falls 
to  its  lot  in  the  settlement  and  development  of  the  Christian  doctrine,  in 
the  spirit  of  the  Reformed  Confession. 

2.  The  Lutherans  and  Swiss  both  reverenced  the  Scripture  principle, 
with  this  distinction,  however,  that  the  former  generally  retained  whatever  was 
not  in  direct  conflict  with  Scripture,  the  latter  left  out  what  could  not  be 
directly  proved  from  Scripture.      All  the  Confessions  of  the  Reformed 
Church  agree  so  completely  in  their  recognition  of  Holy  Scripture  as  the 
highest  rule  and  arbiter  of  faith,  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  bring  proofs  of 
this  fact. 

3.  It  cannot  be  denied  that,  under  the  influence  of  the  reviving  Scholas- 
ticism of  the  seventeenth  century,  the  Scripture  principle  was  for  a  time 
mechanically  conceived  an  1  unspiritually  used.     Ecclesiastical  orthodoxy 
has  often  treated  Scripture  en  bloc  as  a  code,  just  as  the  jurist  has  made  use 
of  the  Corpus  Juris.     The  isolated  letter  was  not  unfrequently  employed 
as  a  proof  of  some  dogma,  whilst  the  historical  coherence  and  the  spirit  of 
the  whole  was  disregarded.     This  was  partly  connected  with  a  well-known 
theory  concerning  the  inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture  (§  39)  which  has  in 
later  years  been  recognised  as  untenable.     It  was  reserved  for  our  later 
days -to  regard  Holy  Scripture  in  a  more  historical  light,  as  a  collection  of 
original   records   of  very  varied  value.     Hence  arose  at  the  same  time 
the  right  and  the  duty  of  a  cautious  sifting  and  valuation  of  its  separate 
parts. 

4.  This  sifting,  if  it  is  not  to  become  quite  arbitrary,  must  be  made  on  a 
settled  principle.     That  principle  is  declared  in  the  proposition  that  the 
value  of  the  different  parts  of  Scripture  is  fixed  by  their  greater  or  less 
degree  of  relation  to  Christ.     The  right  to  ground  this  proposition  arises 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  the  authority  of  the  Lord,  the  words  and 
example  of  the  Reformers,  and  the  expression  of  the  Christian  consciousness 
which  even  involuntarily  observes  this  rule  in  its  use  and  estimation  of  the 
Bible.     On  this  principle  the   writings  of  the  New  Testament  must   be 
placed  before  those  of  the  Old,  and  in  the  first,  again,  that  part  of  the  book 
must   be   preferred    which    points   most   expressly  to  Christ,  and  to  the 
salvation  wrought  by  Him.     "  It  is  to  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament 
that  the  dogmatic  proof  must  return  to  found  its  dogmas  securely  on  Christ 
Himself"  (J.  Miiller). 

5.  From  this  standpoint  it  is  not  difficult  to  fix  the  value  of  the  writings 
of  the  Old  Testament  for  Dogmatics.      Perfect  equality  with  those  of  the 
New  is  at  variance,  not  merely  with    the  historical  character  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, but  also  with  the  spirit  of  the    Reformation.     Novum  multo  mcliiis 
Vetere  (Beza).     In  opposition  to  such  an  over-estimation  of  the  first  half  of 
the  Scripture,  as  is  justly  chargeable  on  the  Dogmatics  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  and  which  even  in  our  time  is   observable  in  the  Romish  Church 
and  among  some  Protestant  sects,  we  meet  with  a  disavowal  of  their  value, 
which  we   may  characterise  not   merely   as    injustice,  but  as  ingratitude 

c 


!g  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

itself.  Following  in  the  wake  of  the  old  Gnosticism  and  the  later 
Socinianism  and  Rationalism,  Schleiermacher  especially,  and  above  all  the 
modem  Rationalism,  has  laid  itself  open  to  this  charge  of  one-sidedness. 
We  best  avoid  either  extreme  when  we  look  upon  the  Old  Testament  with 
the  eye  with  which  it  was  regarded  by  Jesus  Himself  and  the  Apostles ; 
and  while  we  confess  that  it  is  indispensable,  allow  that  it  is  insufficient 

6.  The  rules  for  the  dogmatic  use  of  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament 
are  easily  adduced  from  what  has  been  already  said.  We  have  no  right  for 
a  use  of  these  Scriptures  in  which  we  do  not  alike  take  heed  of  their 
peculiar  character,  as  distinguished  from  those  of  the  New  Testament 
The  Old  Testament  revelation  must  always  be  regarded  first  in  relation  to 
Israel,  and  has  only  value  for  our  Dogmatics  in  so  far  as  it  is  confirmed  by 
the  Gospel  of  the  New.  The  letter  of  the  Old  Testament  must  thus  be 
tested  by  the  spirit  of  the  New,  and  whatever  therein  stands  in  opposition 
to  the  New  has  as  little  binding  force  for  our  belief  as  for  our  life.  A 
dogma  which  can  be  supported  only  by  an  appeal  to  the  Old  Testament 
can  only  maintain  its  place  in  Christian  Dogmatics  if  it  manifestly  does 
not  conflict  with  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  New,  and  also  stands  in  close 
connection  with  other  propositions  derived  from  the  New  Testament.  If 
anything  in  the  Old  Testament  had  no  religious  or  soteriological  value,  it 
would  have  no  import  for  Christian  Dogmatics.  As  a  whole,  the  Old 
Testament  must  be  regarded  as  a  propadeusis,  or  preliminary  training  to 
the  Christ  which  supports  the  New,  without  standing  on  the  same  level. 
"  The  question  here  is  as  to  the  relative  value  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
this  depends  in  general  upon  its  organic  relation  to  the  New.  By  means 
of  this  organic  relation  the  imperfection  of  the  Old  Testament  as  contrasted 
with  the  New  is  shown  chiefly  in  the  fact  that  what  is  present  in  a  con- 
cealed manner  in  the  Old,  is  first  really  revealed  in  the  New."  (Muller.) 

Compare  A.  SCHWEITZER,  Die  Glaubenslefire  der  Ev.  Ref.  Kirche  (1841),  i.,  §  6; 
H.  PUTT,  Evangel.  Glaubensl.  (1863),  i.,  §§  7— 9  ;  L.  DIESTEL,  Geschichte  des  A.  T.  in 
d.  Chr.  Kirche  (1869). 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

The  Scripture  principle  in  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  Churches.— Testimonies  of  the 
Reformers  and  of  the  most  celebrated  Creeds. — The  Scripture  principle  in  Dogmatics 
alternately  overrated  and  mistaken.— How  to  be  preserved  from  arbitrary  views  in  our 
definition  of  the  value  of  the  different  parts  of  Scripture.— The  different  estimation  and  use 
:  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  in  earlier  and  later  times.— The  distinction  between 
the  usus  hermeneuticus,  hiatoricus,  dogmaticus  et  moralis  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testa- 
"ie^~ Necessity  for  a  continuous  and  well-directed  examination  of  Scripture  for  the  study 
of  Christian  Dogmatics,  especially  in  the  present  time. 


SECTION  IX.— THE  SYMBOLICAL  WRITINGS. 

The  Confessional  Writings  of  the  Church  (fons  secundarius)  can  not 
bly  be  placed  on  a  line  with  Holy  Scripture,  but  must,  on  the 


THE  SYMBOLICAL  WRITINGS.  19 

contrary,  bs  tested  by,  and  if  necessary  altered  according  to,  this 
latter.  They  contain  no  law  for,  but  an  expression  of,  the  belief 
which  the  Christian  Church  since  the  earliest  times  has  constantly 
confessed,  and  the  Reformed  Church,  in  contradistinction  fiom 
others,  has  maintained  with  relative  purity.  On  these  grounds 
Christian  Dogmatics  accepts  the  guidance  of  the  Symbolical 
Writings  rather  in  the  historical  than  in  the  philosophical  part  of  its 
investigation,  and  should  in  this  latter  by  no  means  let  its  freedom 
be  tried  by  the  letter  of  the  Creed,  however  much,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  must  be  on  its  guard  against  all  individualistic  deprecia- 
tion of  the  continuity  of  the  faith  in  the  Church  which  its  aim  is 
to  serve. 

Our  sources  of  the  second  rank  are,  partly  the  so-called  (Ecumenical 
Symbols,  partly  the  Symbolical  Writings  of  the  Churches  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. A  short  survey  of  these  treasures  of  the  Church  must  precede  our 
closer  estimate. 

1.  i.  To  the  first  class  belong  (i)  the  Twelve  Articles  of  the  Catholic 
Christian    faith,    commonly   called  the   Apostles'    Creed,   and   incorrectly 
regarded  as  thv  work  of  the  Apostles  themselves,  still  now  as  always  recog- 
nised as  one  of ,  he  most  venerable  memorials  of  Christian  Antiquity,  which 
gradually   sprar0   from   the  extension  of  the  baptismal  command  (Matt 
xxviii.  19),  and  in  their  present  form  are  derived  from  the  Rome  of  the  fifth  or 
sixth  century,  and  on  this  account  called  Symbolum  Romanian  :  (2)  the  Creed 
of  Nicasa  (325),  enlarged  at  Constantinople  (381),  composed  in  support  of 
the  orthodox  belief  concerning  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Holy  Ghost  against 
Arius,  Apollinaris,  and  Macedonius;  (3)  the  creed  "Quicunque,"  thus  called 
from   its  commencement,  and  attributed  for  centuries,  though  without  the 
least  right,  to  Athanasius,  and  probably  composed  in  the  sixth  century,  by 
an  unknown  hand  in  Gaul  or  Spain. 

2.  Next  to  these  (Ecumenical  Creeds,  the  Reformed  Church  has  her  own 
Creeds,  though  here  she  falls  behind  the  Lutherans.    She  has  no  such  well- 
known  banner  as  the  Augsburg  Confession.     She  uses,  on  the  contrary,  the 
most   excellent   Symbolical   Writings   of    different  countries  and  nations. 
These  may  be  divided   either   geographically    or    chronologically   (Conf. 
Gallica,  Scotica,  Belgica,  etc.),  or  more  Dogmatically,  having  regard  to  their 
different  characters,  into  those  which  exhibit  a  pure  Zwinglian,  and  those 
which  show  a  definite  Calvinistic  type.     Those  of  the  Dutch  Reformed 
Church,  though  in  various  degrees,  may  still  be  all  brought  within  the  last- 
named  class. 

3.  The  creeds  ot  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church  are  (i)   the  Netherlands 
Confession,  composed  by  Guido  de  Bres,  assisted  by  Saravia.  Modet,  and 
other  theologians,  published  in  French  in   1561,  and  in  Dutch  in  1562, 
and  accepted  in  the  same  year  as  a  general  Church  confession  .and  sent  in 
1566,  with  a  touching  address,  to  the  Emperor  Maximilian  at  the  Diet  of 

C  2 


20  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

Augsburg,  as  an  eloquent  apology  for  the  sorely  combated  faith;  (2)  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism,  composed  at  the  command  of  the  Elector  Palatine 
Frederick  III.,  by  Zacharias  Ursinus  and  Caspar  Olevianus,  published  in 
German,  ond  introduced  in  1563,  and  translated  by  Peter  Dathenus  into 
Dutch  in  1 566,  when  it  was  at  once  eagerly  received,  and  after  long  use  as 
a  lesson-book,  and  recommendation  from  various  Synods,  accepted  in  the 
Synod  of  Dordt  in  1619,  for  the  whole  Church,  as  a  recognised  confessional 
writing  ;  (3)  the  Canons  of  Dordt,  containing  the  sentence  of  the  National 
Synodt  those  in  1618-19  relating  to  the  five  Articles,  concerning  which  a 
difference  had  arisen  between  Remonstrants  and  Counter-Remonstrants; 
viz.,  Predestination,  Reconciliation  through  Christ,  Free-Will,  the  Resistibility 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Perseverance  of  the  Saints.  There  is  just  as  little 
reason  to  doubt  of  the  binding  power  of  these  canons  on  the  whole  Dutch 
Church  as  there  is  to  speak  of  a  dogmatic  difference  in  principle  between 
the  one  and  the  other.  The  oldest  confession  of  faith  of  the  Dutch 
Church  (1551),  which,  probably  composed  by  a  Lasco,  has  first  seen  the 
light  again  in  the  present  century,  has  never  on  this  account  been  reckoned 
among  her  Creeds.  The  four  questions  which  are  put  to  and  answered  by 
the  congregation  before  communion,  in  use  since  1817,  might  in  a  certain 
sense  be  counted  among  them. 

II.  i.  The  value  of  the  Symbolical  Writings,  viewed  as  a  whole,  is  already 
denoted  by  calling  them  our  fans  seaindarius.  According  to  the  Dutch 
Confession  of  Faith  itself,  they  can  in  no  way  be  placed  on  an  equality 
with  Holy  Scripture,  but  must  be  tested  by  it.  Even  in  1565,  the  Synod 
under  the  Cross  at  Antwerp  resolved  that  at  the  opening  of  every  synod  the 
Confession  of  Faith  should  be  read  "  as  much  to  profess  our  union  as  to 
consider  if  there  be  anything  to  change  or  modify." 5  It  does  not  express 
what  every  Christian  must  believe  in  order  to  be  saved,  but  what  is  believed 
and  confessed  by  the  Church  itself,  in  distinction  from  other  churches.  As 
such,  the  Symbolical  Writings  define  also  the  physiognomy  of  the  Church, 
and  mark  out  the  point  of  departure  for  the  further  line  of  its  historic 
development.  But  they  were  never  intended  to  confine  within  bonds  the 
spirit  of  investigation,  still  less  to  fill  the  hated  part  of  "a  paper  pope."6 
Holy  Scripture  alone  is  the  nor  ma  normans,  the  Confession  the  norma  nor- 
mata  of  the  belief  of  the  Church. 

2.  We  must  neither  over-estimate  nor  under-estimate  the  value  of  the 
Symbolic  Writings  for  Christian  Dogmatics.  They  are  of  the  utmost 
sen-ice  in  the  investigation  of  the  belief  and  confession  of  the  Church,  but 
of  less  value  in  individual  philosophic  speculation  on  the  question,  What 

the  truth  necessary  to  salvation  ?  Undoubtedly  we  must  in  these  matters 
isten  to  voices  such  as  these.  No  one,  in  fact,  begins  his  investigation 
entirely  unprejudiced ;  all  stand,  even  unconsciously,  in  the  footsteps  of 
venerable  forerunners,  and  feel  the  influence  of  the  atmosphere  in  which 
their  own  consciousness  of  belief  develops  itself.  No  dogmatic  investiga- 

Tant  pour  protester  de  notre  union,  que  pour  adviser  s'il  n'y  a  rien  a  changer  ou  a 

Expression  commonly  used  since  the  seventeenth  century,  on  the  Continent,  by  such 
ccused  the  Church  of  lending  a  character  of  infallibility  to  the  Symbolic  Writings. 


THE  SYMBOLICAL  WRITINGS.  21 

tion,  however,  can  claim  the  name  of  independent  and  scientific,  which, 
dominated  by  the  Symbolic  Writings,  sees  its  results  prescribed  even  before 
begun.  The  first  question  always  is,  What  is  truth  ?  the  second,  What 
does  the  Church  teach  ?  This  latter,  would  renounce  her  peculiar  Christian 
and  Protestant  character  if  she  attacked  the  freedom  of  scientific  investiga- 
tion. It  is,  however,  quite  another  matter  whether  she  must  admit  every 
result  of  that  investigation  in  her  domain,  and  can  use  it  in  her  service. 
The  Church  permits  the  liberty  of  scientific  investigation,  but  also  retains 
the  liberty  of  rejecting  what  injures  and  destroys  her,  and  this  liberty  she  is 
bound  to  maintain. 

3.  The  practical  question,  how  far  the  dogmatist,  in  his  work  as  minister 
of  the  Church,  must  consider  himself  bound  by  her  Confession,  can  here 
only  be  touched  upon.  Thus  much  however  is  evident,  it  is  not  with  any 
dogmatic  conviction  whatever  (much  less  with  a  complete  want  thereof), 
that  a  man  has  a  right  to  place  himself  among  the  teachers  and  leaders  of 
a  definite  church.  No  church  summons  ministers  to  contest  her  belief, 
and  no  one  can  possibly  demand  of  her  an  act  of  suicide  in  the  name  of 
progress  and  toleration.  On  the  other  hand,  a  church  which  wishes  to 
remain  Christian  and  Protestant  cannot  desire  any  other  teaching  than  that 
which  bears  the  stamp  of  subjective  truth  and  thorough  sincerity.  Expe- 
rience shows  that  the  attempt  to  distinguish  to  the  general  satisfaction 
between  fundamental  and  non-fundamental  dogmas  has  thus  far  been  as 
unsuccessful  as  the  efforts  to  define  once  for  all  what  must  really  be  con- 
sidered as  essence  and  substance  of  the  Confession.  The  wearying  struggle 
between  the.  quia  and  the  quatenus  is  as  little  decided  as  the  sharp 
separation  between  principles  and  doctrines  of  the  Reformed  Dogmatics  is 
raised  above  reasonable  suspicion.  That  modern  Naturalism,  in  its 
resistance  in  principle  to  Christianity  and  doctrine,  has  nowhere  less  right 
of  existence  than  in  the  place  which  it  arbitrarily  occupies,  can  only  be 
denied  when  we  suffer  interested  calculation  to  prevail  against  sound 
reasoning.  But  even  when,  in  opposition  to  all  this,  any  one  has  placed 
himself  at  the  juridico-confessional  standpoint,  the  question  arises,  what 
we  must  do  in  a  time  when  all,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  have  departed 
from  the  letter  of  the  Creeds,  but  also  against  an  adversary  who,  not  without 
great  cause,  emphatically  reminds  us  of  the  principle,  that  "  he  who  offends 
in  one  point  is  guilty  of  all."  No  other  way  seems  to  remain,  after  all, 
than  that  we  prefer  to  call  the  ethical  or  medial  way.  The  conscience  of 
the  minister,  if  properly  educated,  must  determine  whether  he  can  boldly 
stand  forth  in  the  face  of  his  Church ;  the  consciousness  of  the  Church,  if 
well  guided,  must  declare  whether,  in  its  holiest  convictions,  it  feels  itself 
strengthened  or  oppressed  by  him.  Whenever  these  be  united  with  a  tender 
scrupulosity  on  both  sides,  the  earnest  wish  to  heal  all  moral  and  spiritual 
diseases  by  the  power  of  truth  and  love,  an  approach  is  conceivable  which 
will  lead  to  real  peace.  In  every  case  this  standpoint — which  we  claim 
as  ours — has  this  advantage,  that  it  does  not  break  with  the  past,  satisfies 
the  reasonable  requirements  of  the  present,  and  prepares  the  way  for  a 
better  future. 

Compare,  as  to  the  (Ecumenical  Symbols,  the  articles  relating  to  them  in  HERZOG'S  Rtal. 


22  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

s,       and  particularly  G.  J.   Vossivs,  Diuertt.  ires  de  trilnts  Symlb  .  (1662,  Ed    2a>. 
n  the  cSs  of    he  Netherlands'  Reformed  Church,  Preface  to  the  Edition  by  H. 

VAN  TOORENENBERGEN  186. 


he      eterans      eorm  ,  . 

;  H.  E.  ViNKE  (1846),  and  J.  J.  VAN  TOORENENBERGEN  (1869). 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Origin,  history,  and  value  of  the  "  Apostles'  Creed."-The  Creed  of  Nic^a  -How  we 
discover    that   the  Athanasian  Creed  was  not  written   by   Athanasius.—  Calvin  s   view 
oncernine  it.—  The   importance   of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  even   for  the  Reformed 
irches  -The  peculiarity  of  the  Confessions  of  the  latter.—  Is  the  generally  binding 
authority  'of  the  ranons  of  Dordt   raised   beyond  all   doubt  ?-The  importance  of  the 
study  of  the  Symbolical  Writings  for  Christian   Dogmatics.—  Formularies.—  Liberty  of 
thought   and  the  Church.—  Total  submission  to  formularies  as  unscientific,  as  dread  of 
formularies  is  unchristian. 


SECTION  X. — THE    CHRISTIAN    CONSCIOUSNESS. 

To  the  Christian  truth,  in  accordance  with  .the  Gospel  believed 
and  confessed  by  the  Church,  the  Christian  consciousness  gives  a 
witness,  with  reason  estimated  highly.  Only  where  objective  truth" 
finds  a  point  of  contact  in  the  subjective  consciousness,  does  it  be- 
come the  spiritual  property  of  mankind,  and  can  it  be  thus  properly 
understood  and  valued.  So  far,  and  so  far  only,  dots  the  Christian 
consciousness  deserve  a  pi  ace  among  the  sources  of  Dogmatics. 
But  since  the  doctrine  of  salvation  can  be  derived  neither  from 
reason,  nor  from  feeling,  nor  from  conscience,  and  the  internal 
consciousness  only  attests  and  confirms  the  truth,  after  having 
learned  it  from  Scripture,  this  last  must  always  be  valued  as 
the  principal  source. 

i.  It  was  only  in  the  present  century,  and  chiefly  through  the  influence 
of  Schleiermacher  (11834),  that  the  Christian  consciousness  began  to  be 
considered  a  source  of  Dogmatics.  He  started  with  his  investigation  from 
man's  feeling  of  his  unlimited  dependence.  Dogma  is  for  him  the  develop- 
ment of  the  utterances  of  the'  pious  self-consciousness,  as  this  is  found  in 
every  Christian,  and  is  still  more  determined  by  the  opposition  between 
sin  and  grace.  In  other  words,  it  is  the  scientific  expression  of  the  pious 
feeling  which  the  believer,  upon  close  self-examination,  perceives  in  his 
heart.  Thus  this  consciousness  is  here  the  gold-mine  from  which  the 
dogmas  must  be  dug  out,  in  order  to  "  found  "  them  afterwards  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, in  Holy  Scripture.  In  the  individual  it  is  the  result  of  the  spirit  of 
the  community  as  this  is  a  revelation  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  Of  this 
"  Gemeingeist "  Schleiermacher  allows,  it  is  true,  that  it  must  continually 


THE  CHRISTIAN   CONSCIOUSNESS.  23 

develop  and  strengthen  itself  by  the  words  of  Scripture,  but  not  that  it 
must  find  in  the  latter  its  infallible  correcting  rule.  For  him  the  highest 
principle  of  Christian  knowledge  is  thus  something  entirely  subjective, 
and  the  autonomy  of  his  self-consciousness  is  the  basis  of  his  entire  system. 
The  unceasing  play  which  since  his  time  has  been  made  of  this  word, 
as  in  later  times  of  the  word  "conscience,"  renders  necessary  a  short 
explanation. 

2.  Schleiermacher,  with  his  school,  speaks  of  the  pious  self-consciousness 
(also   called  immediate  consciousness)    usually   in   the    sense   of  feeling. 
Meanwhile,  however,  the  word  itself  points  to  the  domain  of  "  knowledge," 
which  must  at  once  be  properly  distinguished  from  feeling  and  disposition. 
The  question  wnether  this  consciousness  is   something  thoroughly  imme- 
diate (primitive,  original),  need  the  less  be  here  determined,  because  there 
is  no  mention  here  of  the  universal   human,  but  of  the  special  Christian 
consciousness,  which  has  been  formed  in  the  well-known  historical  psjcho- 
logical  way.     In  this  use  of  the  word  we  think  of  "  that  knowledge  which 
the  Christian  has  in  himself  of  spiritual  things,"  and  in  opposition  to  the 
knowledge,  imparted  from  without,  of  "  that  which  he  knows  by  means  of 
self-examination  and  spiritual  experience." 

3.  The  value  which,  on  this  conception  of  the  word,  must  be  conceded 
to  the  matter  itself  is  evident.      Though  the  claim  that  men  should  take  to 
themselves  and  assimilate  the   truth  has  been  misinterpreted  and  misused 
by  thousands,  it  yet  possesses  an   indisputable  right.     So  long  as  I  do  not 
consciously  accept  a  truth  for   myself,  it  remains   a  truth,  external  to  and 
above  me,  but  is  not  a  truth  for  me,  and  in  me.      And  therefore  the  Gospel 
looks  for  a  point  of  union  in  man,  and  finds  it  in  the  highest  aspirations  of 
his  heart,  intellect,  and  conscience.     Where  it    is  faithfully  accepted,   a 
spiritual  agreement  springs  up,  and  consequently  an  inner  consciousness  of 
truth.      This   consciousness   of   experience  not    only   may,    but   must   be 
reckoned  among  the  sources  of  our  knowledge.      We  find  proofs  of  such  a 
fixed  and  clear   consciousness   in   John  iv.    42  ;    ix.    25  ;    2  Tim.   i.    12. 
Where  it  is  utterly  wanting,  even  the  most   accurate   knowledge  deserves 
only  the   name  of  dead  knowledge.      A  man's    own   experience  leads  to 
much   deeper  insight   of  things    than    the    best    attested  testimony ;  and 
with    one    of    the    most    distinguished     thinkers    of    our   age,   we   may 
surely    grant    that     the    Christian    consciousness     is    "  a  relatively  inde- 
pendent  source   of    Christianity,    distinct   from    Scripture   and    Church." 
(Martensen.) 

4.  Thus  far,  then,  along  with  the  fons  primarius  et   sccunriarius,  we  may 
speak  also  of  a  fons  internus.     This  is  quite  in  the  spirit  of  the  Apostles 
and  of  the  Reformers,  not  only  of  Calvin,  concerning  the  doctrine  cf  the 
witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (§  32),  but  also  of  Luther.7      "We  might  preach 
the  law  for  ever  to  a  beast,  and  yet  it  will  not  enter  into    the  heart.     But 
man,  as  soon  as  the  law  is  proclaimed  to  him,  at  once    exclaims,  'Yes,  it 
is  so  ;  I  cannot  deny  it.'     We  could  not  convince  him    of  this,  if  it  were 
not  beforehand  written  in  his  heart.     But  since  it  is  so,  however  dim  and 


7  I  Cor.  ii.  12,  13  ;  i  John  ii.  20,  27. 


24  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS 

faded,  it  is  again  quickened  with  the  word,  so  that  the  heart  must 
confess  that  it  is  indeed  as  the  commandments  ordain."  *  Orthodox  theo- 
logians meant  nothing  but  this  when  they  desired  an  "  experimental " 
knowledge. 

5.  But  if  that  which  is  true  here  is  not  wholly  new,  the  new  is  not  wholly 
true.     The  question  is  not,  whether  the  consciousness  offers  a  point  of 
union  with  revealed  truth,  or  even  whether   experience,   after   Scripture 
and  the  Church,  gives  testimony  to  it ;  but  whether  the  Christian  conscious- 
ness may  be  considered   the  fountain-head  of  knowledge,  and  thus  the 
starting-point  of  the  investigation,  in  the  sense  that  in  the  end  every  other 
voice  must  be  considered  as  subordinate  to  it.     In  other  words,  whether 
the  knowledge  of  the  truth  of  salvation  can  be  derived  from  the  human 
and  Christian  consciousness  in  its  widest  conception.     To  us,  upon  this 
point,  any  answer  but  a  negative  one  seems  inconceivable. 

6.  Christianity,  then,  proclaims  itself  as  a  positive  revelation  of  God, 
given  in  a  succession  of  facts ;  a  deed  of  His  love,  which  glorifies  itself 
even  herein,  that  it  has  been  a  free  work,  with  respect  to  which  no  human 
understanding  could,  d  priori,  form  any  judgment.     Just  as  little  as  any 
philosopher  could  prove  that  God  must  have  made  the  world,  could  any 
theologian  determine  the  mode   and  manner   in    which  God  must  have 
redeemed  the  world.     That  which  is  revealed  may  be,  a  posteriori,  in  some 
degree  understood  and  discovered,  but  it  could  never  have  been  discovered 
by  reason.     A  recognition  of  the  supremacy  of  reason  in  this  domain  must 
inevitably  end  in  a  disavowal  of  the  supranatural  character  of  the  whole 
of  Christianity.     Besides,  our    conception  of  God   and   Divine  things  is 
already  partly  dominated  by  the  contents  of  the  Gospel  made  known  to  us, 
and  it  is  mere  fancy  to  imagine  that  reason  could  evolve  the  doctrine  of 
salvation  from  itself.    "  Revelation  is  a  matter  of  the  purest  and  freest  will. 
Thus  no  one,  who  so  much  as  knows  what  the  question  is,  when  he  is 
speaking  of  revelation,  would   imagine    that   this  was   something   which 
could  be  conceived  a  priori.     On  the   contrary,  the  philosophy  of  reve- 
lation must  admit  that  everything  which  it  is  able  to  declare  of  revelation 
is  only  declared   in   consequence   of  that  which   has   really  happened." 
(Schelling,  Philos.  der  Offen.  ii.,  p.  n.) 

7.  Still  less  can  we  acknowledge  pious  feeling  to  be  an  infallible  source  of 
the  highest  truth.     Indeed,  its  utterances  are  entirely  different  in  different 
persons,  while  even  in  the  same  individual  they  are  ceaselessly  changing. 
Moreover,  it  would  never  thus  give  testimony  to  the  truth,  if  the  reason 
and  the  heart  had  not  already  accepted  the  Gospel  as  truth,  upon  what 
they  consider  valid  grounds.     Feeling  is  neither  the  gold  mine,  nor  the 
master  of  the  assay,  but  only  the  guardian  treasurer  of  the  hidden  treasure 
of  belief.     For  the  believer  himself  it  is  (as  consciousness,  experience)  the 
crown  of  his  belief,  the  proof  of  his  sum,  and  thus  a  source  of  security 
and  peace.     But  still  it  i§  always  the  consequence,  the  seal  (obsignatio),  of 
that  which  has  already  been  learned  in  another  way,  and  it  requires  besides 
constant   testing  and  purifying,  that  it  may  not  be  lost  in  the  maze  of 


Werke,  edited  by  Walch,  iiL,  p.  1575. 


THE  CHRISTIAN   CONSCIOUSNESS.  25 

Mysticism.  Even,  too,  in  this  mode,  we  cannot  grant  the  Autonomy  to 
self-consciousness ;  but  this  latter  must  always  be  considered  as  subject  to 
the  Heteronomy  or  Theonomy  of  God's  word  in  Holy  Scripture.  The  test 
stands  above  that  which  must  constantly  be  tested.  "  We  must  consider  it 
an  erroneous  conception,  that  in  our  days  it  has  sometimes  been  denoted 
as  a  possible  method  of  Dogmatics  to  derive  its  conclusions  entirely  from 
the  Christian  consciousness,  without  any  reference  to  Scripture,  and  to 
establish  them  by  their  coherence  with  the  facts  of  Scripture.  The  false 
spiritualistic  Autonomy  of  Christian  consciousness  would  thus  lead  to  the 
most  complete  corruption  thereof."  (J.  Muller.) 

8.  Many  a  one  in  our  days  expects  to  gain  from  the  conscience  that  which 
he  feels  sure  reason  and  feeling  cannot  give.  A  consistent  Dogmatics  has 
been  formed  in  Germany  from  the  standpoint  of  the  conscience  (Schenkel), 
and  already,  by  this  method,  and  by  its  character  of  prolixity,  has  been 
stigmatised  as  a  proof  of  want  of  conscience  (Strauss).  In  France,  too, 
and  in  Holland,  when  the  question  is  as  to  the  source  of  truth,  the  con- 
science has  been  pointed  out  with  an  emphasis  formerly  unknown ;  some- 
times in  a  manner  to  justify  the  complaint,  "  Avec  ce  mot  de  conscience 
on  explique  tout,  on  justifie  tout  de  nos  jours,  et  la  conscience  sert  a  cacher 
la  faiblesse  des  convictions  comme  la  faussete  des  situations"9  (Matter). 
Hence  we  see  the  extreme  importance  of  defining  our  conception  of 
conscience.  We  consider  it  unnecessary  to  say  much  concerning  the 
etymology  of  the  word  (conscientia,  vw^tnfu).  It  is  well  known  that  it 
has  been  differently  explained,  but  no  sufficient  proof  has  been  given  that 
an  unanimity  as  to  the  derivation  of  the  word  would  for  ever  put  an 
end  to  every  quarrel  about  the  matter.  We  make  a  step  in  advance  as 
we  regard  the  different  functions  which  are  ascribed  to  conscience,  and 
attend  to  the  special  cases  where  appeal  is  made  to  the  conscience. 
It  is  evident,  then,  that  we  stand  here  in  a  moral  domain,  and  over 
against  a  higher  power  which  demands  unlimited  obedience.  It  was 
a  striking  definition  of  conscience,  once  made  by  a  child,  when  it  said, 
"  it  is  that  with  which  we  cannot  do  what  we  like."  Conscience  is  thus 
moral  consciousness,  a  knowledge  in  and  by  one's  self  with  regard  to  some 
definite  duty.  It  contains  the  consciousness  of  personal  vocation,  obli- 
gation, responsibility,  not  only  towards  ourselves  and  others,  but  towards 
an  inviolable  law,  and,  since  this  is  the  expression  of  a  personal  will, 
towards  a  holy  lawgiver.  Thus  far  we  may  say,  that  in  the  conscience 
an  original  consciousness  of  God  reveals  itself;  it  is  the  cypher,  the 
monogram  of  the  Creator  in  the  rational  and  moral  creature. 

Conscience  is  thus  necessarily  Witness,  Lawgiver,  Judge.  Witness  of 
the  existence  and  right  of  a  holy  supreme  authority  over  us;  witness  of  a 
personal  God,  since  from  the  pantheistic  point  of  view  conscience  becomes 
a  chimera.  A  Lawgiver,  who  maintains  the  unconditional  right  of  the 
moral  law,  and  yet  does  not  express  the  universal  good  and  bad,  since  the 
ideas  of  good  and  bad  under  divers  influences  \\idely  differs  among  different 

9  "By  this  word  conscience  everything  is  now-a-days  explained  and  justified,  and 
conscience  is  used  to  conceal  the  weakness  of  convictions,  as  well  as  the  falseness  of 
positions." 


26  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

nations,  nevertheless  inexorably  requires  that  man,  according  to  the  light 
given  to  h  m,  should  cease  to  do  evil,  and  learn  to  do  well.  A  Judge, 
finally,  who  acquits  or  condemns,  just  as  duty  is  considered  or  neglected. 
As  an  accuser,  conscience  made  itself  first  known  after  the  first  sin  had 
been  committed,  but  it  does  not  yet  necessarily  follow  that  it  was  first 
aroused  in  consequence  of  the  sin.  As  a  consciousness  of  moral  duty  it 
belongs  to  man's  original  nature  as  much  as  the  reason,  the  feeling,  and 
the  will.  Without  unconditionally  excluding  one  of  these  three,  when  we 
come  to  the  question  of  the  seat  of  conscience,  we  look  for  this  latter  rather 
in  the  domain  of  the  heart — in  the  very  central  point  of  personality.  And 
thus  we  follow  in  the  steps  of  Scriptural  usage,  which  recommends  itself 
by  its  deep  psychological  truth.10 

The  question,  whether  and  how  far  conscience  (conceived  as  far  as  pos- 
sible collectively  and  beyond  the  influence  of  the  Gospel)  can  be  a  source 
of  religious  truth,  after  what  has  been  said,  is  answered  without  difficulty. 
Conscience  proclaims  a  holy  God,  an  inviolable  moral  law,  where  this  is 
broken,  a  righteous  retribution,  and  consequently  also  a  need  of  redemption, 
which  man  cannot  procure  for  himself.  But  conscience,  as  such,  does  not 
know  whether  redemption  is  really  obtainable,  or  in  what  mode  it  is  to  be 
gained ;  it  will  even,  when  thoroughly  quickened,  scarcely  admit  this  idea. 
It  knows,  indeed,  of  law,  but  not  of  grace,  which  must  be  first  revealed  in 
deeds,  and  can  as  little  be  postulated  a  priori  by  conscience,  as  it  can  be 
excogitated  by  reason.  Now  that  the  Gospel  has  been  revealed,  conscience 
may  bear  its  testimony  to  it,  but  it  by  no  means  follows  that  the  conscience 
could  h;ive  deduced  the  contents  of  this  revelation.  Such  phrases  as, 
"Christ  is  the  subject-matter  of  conscience,"  or,  "  Christ,  the  conscience 
of  humanity,"  give  us  hardly  any  clearness  of  conception.  Christ,  an  his- 
toric person,  is  the  centre  of  a  revelation,  which  gives  satisfaction  to  the 
conscience,  and  that  which  He  demands  is  assented  to  by  the  conscience. 
But  this  does  not  yet  prove  that  this  revelation  should  be  merely  a  develop- 
ment of  that  which  is  already  present  in  principle  in  every  conscience,  still 
less  that  this  last  must  be  either  the  highest  source  or  the  supreme  judge 
in  this  domain.  He  who  seriously  asserts  this,  forgets  entirely  the  historic 
supernatural  character  of  Christianity,  and  reverences  a  consciencialism 
which,  properly  regarded,  must  be  called  only  another  form  of  the  Ration- 
alism which,  from  that  very  side,  has  been  so  much  despised. 

"  Consciencialism  "  in  the  domain  of  Dogmatics  is  that  tendency  which 
recognises  the  conscience  not  merely  as  the  guide,  but  as  the  highest 
arbiter,  in  the  kingdom  of  truth,  and  which  will  not  recognise  as  truth  any- 
thing which  is  not  witnessed  and  approved  by  the  conscience.  [As  a  type 
of  this  conception  Schenkel  may  be  quoted,  who  (/.  c.  i.,  p.  213)  permits 
conscience  to  decide  what  is  Holy  Scripture,  and  again,  what  in  Scripture 
s  to  be  regarded  as  the  word  of  God.]  Dogmatics,  from  this  standpoint, 
may  not  properly  proclaim  anything  which  is  not  already  slumbering  in 
the  conscience ;  conscience,  on  the  other  hand,  will  determine  whether  a 
dogmatic  proposition  shall  be  granted  or  not  Is  much  required  to 

10  Comp.  Prov.  iv.  23  ;  Rom.  u.  14,  15  ;  Heb.  x.  22. 


THE  CHRISTIAN  CONSCIOUSNESS.  2/ 

prove  the  arbitrariness  and  untenability  of  this  whole  view  ?  It  is  evident, 
nothing  can  be  developed  from  the  conscience,  which  is  not  present  as 
subject-matter  in  the  conscience.  Conscience  can  bear  testimony  to  a 
moral  precept,  but  never  to  an  historical  fact,  as  such  ;  it  may  be  a  test  of 
our  acts,  but  cannot  possibly  be  a  source  of  a  particular  revelation  ;  it  can 
recognise  the  internal  value  of  the  Gospel,  but  by  this  its  truth  is  by  no  means 
determined.  Besides,  experience  shows  that  conscience  does  not  always 
speak  with  the  same  voice  in  different  persons,  and  equally  as  the  feeling 
and  the  will  is  under  the  influence  of  an  intellect  obscured  by  sin.u  "  When 
conscience  ceases  to  read,  and  begins  to  write,  then  will  Scripture  be  as 
diverse  as  the  handwriting  of  men.  Tell  me  of  one  sin,  which  is  called  a 
sin  by  all"  (Cl.  Harms).  The  same  may  be  said  of  truth,  specially  of 
Christian  truth,  which  (we  must  here  by  no  means  pass  it  by)  exhibits  not 
only  an  ethical,  but  also  a  metaphysical  side.  How  many  propositions  are 
there  in  the  domain  of  Theology,  Christologv,  Pneumatology,  Eschatology, 
concerning  which  conscience  tells  us  nothing  at  all,  because  they  lie  en- 
tirely outside  the  sphere  of  conscience.  In  truth,  "  to  derive  dogmas  from 
conscience,  is  to  bring  down  the  greatness  of  the  Divine  thoughts  to  the 
diminutiveness  of  the  human,  and  thus  revealed  truth  will  in  a  greater  of 
less  degree  be  excluded  from  Dogmatics  "  (Auberlen).  We  must  not  shut 
our  eyes  to  this  inevitable  consequence.  If  conscience  is  the  highest 
source  of  truth,  we  must  then  put  on  one  side  as  indifferent,  or  reject  as 
undemonstrable,  everything  which  cannot  maintain  its  right  before  this 
tribunal.  When  the  utterances  of  Scripture  and  of  conscience  conflict, 
the  consistent  consciencialist  must  not  only  suspend  his  judgment,  but 
sooner  or  later  must  openly  contradict  Scripture.  And  even  if  Scrip- 
ture and  conscience  speak  with  the  same  voice,  what  security  have  I, 
that  what  conscience  testifies  as  a  revelation  is  the  expression  of  eternal 
truth?  We  cannot  look  for  that  guarantee  in  conscience  itself;  it  must  be 
sought  for  ab  extra  and  from  above ;  and  on  every  side  I  find  myself  at 
last  turned  back  again  to  the  Word,  which  bears  testimony  of  Christ.  Can 
we  be  surprised  that  Holy  Scripture  itself  says  much  less  about  conscience 
than  would  be  expected  from  the  consciencialistic  point  of  view?  Careful 
consideration  shows  the  conscience  to  stand  in  much  closer  relation  to  the 
teaching  of  the  Old  Testament  than  to  that  of  the  New,  and  it  has 
not  unfairly  been  asserted  by  Peip,  that  the  Gospel  finds  its  support,  less 
in  conscience  in  general,  than  in  the  evil  conscience,  to  which  it  comes  with 
consolation,  but  from  which  it  could  not  possibly  have  been  derived. 

What,  then,  is  our  result?  It  is  not  the  Christian  consciousness  itself, 
in  any  of  its  forms,  but  Christ  Himself,  which  is  the  highest  source  of 
truth  ;  and  Christ  is  best  seen  in  Holy  Scripture.  Conscience  is,  indeed, 
a  connecting  link  for,  but  still  no  source  of,  the  doctrine  of  salvation.  In 
exacting  the  autonomy  of  conscience  at  the  cost  of  the  word  of  Holy 
Scripture,  the  keenly  1'stening  ear  hears  something  of  the  note  which  was 
heard  in  the  first,  "  Ye  shall  be  as  gods."12  In  the  investigation  of  the  Christian 
doctrine,  the  services  which  conscience  renders  are  much  more  formal  than 


11  Tit.  i.  15.  la  Gen.  iii.  5. 


28  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

material ;  it  must  be  carried  out  conscientiously,  but  not  consciencialistically. 
Conscience  works  here  less  normatively  than  prohibitively.  Just  as  little  as 
it  is  advisable  to  do  anything  contrary  to  conscience,  is  it  advisable  to 
teach  anything  contrary  to  it  For  us  nothing  can  be  truth  which  is  loudly 
contradicted  by  our  conscience;  but  neither  is  everything  which  is  necessary 
to  salvation  required  or  confirmed  by  conscience ;  for  revelation  has  a 
supernatural  historic  character,  and  not  only  refers  to  the  conscience,  but 
to  the  whole  inner  man.  From  him  it  demands  obedience  to  the  faith,13  and 
that  demand,  when  properly  vindicated,  must  be  approved  by  conscience. 

Comp.  G.  H.  LAMERS,  Diss.  Theol.  de  Conscuntia  (1858),  and  his  treatise  on  the  same 
subject  in  the  "Hydrogen  op  het gebicd van  Godgeleerd  en  Wijsbeg.  i.  (1867)  ;  F.  FABRI, 
het  algenieetie  ivaarhddsgevoel,  het  orgaan  der  opeiib.  Gods  in  alle  menschen  (1863)  ; 
AUBERI.EN,  Die  gottl.  Ojfenb.  ii.  i,  pp.  25—61  (1864)  ;  R.  HOFFMANN,  Du 
Lfhre  von  dem  Gewissen  (1866),  and  the  literature  quoted  there  ;  W.  GASZ,  Die  Lehr<. 
vom  Geuiissen,  in  Beitrag  zur  Etliik  ;  A.  E.  \V.  WERNER,  Das  Gewissen,  an  ethical  study; 
HILGENFELD,  Zeitsch.  fiir  ivissensch.  Tlicol,  (1870),  p.  129  ;  CH.  WADDINGTON,  Dieu 
et  la  Conscience  (1870) ;  F.  BOUILLIER,  De  la  Conscience  en  1  sychologie  et  en  Moralt 
(1872). 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Further  elucidation  of  the  standpoint  of  Schleiermacher. — The  peculiar  point  in 
dispute. — Ignoring  and  over-estimation  of  the  right  of  conscience  in  the  Christian  Dog- 
matic domain. — Further  analysis  of  its  operation,  in  the  light  of  experience  and  Holy 
Sciipture. — Necessity  of  a  constant  corrective,  such  as  is  found  in  the  written  word, 
claimed  and  recognised  by  conscience  itself. 


:3  Rom.  i.  5. 


CHAPTER   III. 
HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 


SECTION  XL — IN  THE  BUD. 

CHRISTIAN  Dogmatics,  like  every  science,  has  a  history  of  its  own, 
and  a  knowledge  of  this  history  is  absolutely  necessary  for  a 
thorough  study  of  this  science.  It  is  plain  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  that  the  systematic  investigation  of  the  truth  which  belongs 
to  salvation  has  never  completely  ceased  since  the  birth  of  the 
Church  of  our  Lord.  Not  a  little  has  been  already  done,  specially 
for  the  Apologetics  of  Christianity,  and  for  the  development  of 
single  and  most  important  dogmas,  by  the  ancient  Church.  But 
for  Dogmatics  as  a  whole,  taken  as  an  independent  science,  the 
first  seven  centuries  of  our  era  scarcely  deserve  a  better  name  than 
that  of  a  period  of  preparation.  The  earliest  period  of  its  history, 
if  we  denote  it  by  a  single  word,  has  been  a  period  of  slow  and 
gradual  budding. 

1.  The  history  of  the  science,  whilst  it  makes  us  acquainted  with  its 
past,  and  explains  its  present  state,  also  directs  our  way  for  the  future,  by 
pointing  out  to  us  on  the  one  side  its  most  distinguished  leaders,  and  on 
the  other  its  threatening  dangers.     This  history  occupies  a  place  in  our 
introduction,  not  merely  for  completeness'  sake,  but  because  a  knowledge 
of  it,  at  any  rate  to  a  certain  degree,  is  indispensable. 

2.  From  the  nature  of  the  truth  of  salvation,  its  revelation  has  in  every 
century  given  rise  to  speculation   and  investigation.     For  these  it  offers 
boundless  material  and  a  powerful   stimulus  ;    for  rational  faith    cannot 
remain  indifferent  to  that  "  which  the  angels  desire  to  look  into." ]     For 

1  I  Peter  i.  12. 


3o  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

years  before  the  "fides  quant  intdleclum  "  was  uttered,  it  had  been  silently 
practised.  Discursive  thinking  cannot  possibly  satisfy  the  mind  ;  the  spirit 
seeks  unity  in  its  ideas,  even  in  the  highest  domain  of  thought.  "  If  man 
is  to  become  entirely  blessed,  his  reason  must  share  in  the  blessing." 
(Lange.) 

3.  The  working  of  the  different  stones  usually  precedes  the  erecting  of 
the  doctrinal  building  as  a  whole.      The  history  of  the  first  centuries  fully 
explains  why  the  so-called  formal  part  of  Christian  Dogmatics  was  developed 
earlier  than  the  material.     The   violent  opposition  to  Christianity  called 
forth  vigorous  apologists,  whilst  those  separate  dogmas  were  chosen  for  dis- 
cussion, which  had  elicited  most  contradiction.     Thus  the  development  of 
Dogmatics,  on  the  whole,  showed  a  more  theological  character  in  the  East, 
whilst  in  the  West  it  was  more  anthropological.       Christology  and  Hamar- 
tology    were    more    discussed    than    Soteriological    and    Eschatological 
questions. 

4.  In  general,  in  this  first  period  we  can  still  speak  only  of  a  beginning 
which  promised  much.    Among  the  apostles,  Paul,  the  most  vigorous  apolo- 
gist, may  also  be  called  in  a  certain  sense  the  first  dogmatist.     The  Epistle 
to  the  Romans  presents  the  entire  truth  of  salvation  in  a  regular  connec- 
tion, from  its  theoretical  and  practical  sides.     We  do  not  find,  either  in  the 
writings  of  the  other  Apostles,  or  in  those  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  anything 
which  can  be   compared  with  that   epistle.     After  their  time  also  much 
more  was  done  in  the  way  of  explication,  defence,  and  practical  application, 
than  in  the  systematic  combination  of  the  doctrines  of  salvation.     The 
cause  of  this  dogmatic  sobriety  lies  partly  in  the  nature  of  the  Gospel, 
which  does  not  proclaim  a  philosophical  system,  but  a  life  truth,  which  must 
be    practically  laid  hold    on  before    it  can    be  theoretically   conceived; 
partly  in  the  unfavourable  state  of  the  times ;  partly  in  the  richness  of  the 
Gospel  doctrines,  whose  various  sides  were  to  be  duly  represented  before 
a  thorough  representation   of  the   whole  could   be   thought   of;    partly, 
lastly,    in    the  kind  of  satisfaction  which   thoughtful  faith  found  in  the 
gradual  development  of  the  Symbols,  and  in  the  oral  rule  of  faith. 

5.  That,  however,  which  is  particularly  memorable  at  this  period,  scanty 
as  it  may  be,  deserves  even  the  more  our  attention.      To  these,   then, 
exceptional    phenomena    belong,    in    the    first    place,    the    Alexandrine 
school,  and  specially  the  treatise   of  Origen    iiepj  'Apx&>>,    the    Catcchesis 
Magna.  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa,    as  also   the  four   treatises   of  Athanasius 
against  the  Arians,   his    tractate  De  Incarnatione  and    the   catecheses   of 
Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Ad  Baptizandos  et  Baptizatos.     In  the  West,  Augus- 
tine furnishes  his  contribution  to  Christian  Dogmatics  in  his  Enchiridion 
ad  Laiirentium,    which   contains    a  short    representation  of    the   Gospel 
doctrine  in  the  compass  of  faith,  hope,  and  love;  whilst  his  treatise,  De 
civitate  Dei,    exhibits   an    apologetic   rather  .  than  a  dogmatic  character. 
Among  the  dogmatists  of  the  fifth  century,  Vincentius  Lerinensis  (t  450) 
deserves  honourable  mention  for  his  Commonitorinm.      Among  those   of 
the  sixth,  Fulgentius,  Junilius,  and  Leontius  Cyprius.      Here  specially  we 
observe  the  Compilatores  or  Sententiarii,  who  carefully  gathered  together 
the  dogmatic  propositions  of  the  fathers  of  the  Church,  as,  e.?.,  Gennadius 
Massihensis,  in  his  De  Fide  s.  de  Dogmatibus  JEc&tuutias,  a  treatise  in 


IN   THE  BUD.  31 

which  dogmatical  and  ethical  ideas  are  peacefully  united,  and  Isidorus  His- 
palensis  in  his  HILibri  Sentcntiarum.  But  still  this  was  merely  a  time 
for  gathering  materials ;  here,  too,  as  in  the  building  of  the  Jewish  temple, 
the  treasure-collectors  go  before  the  proper  builders  of  the  temple. 

For  this  whole  chapter  compare  A.  IPEY,  Letterk.  Geschiedder  System.  Godgelecriih.,  3  vols. 
(*  797)  J  J-  CLARISSK,  Encyd.  T/ieol.,  2nd  edition  (1835),  pp.  444—447 ;  TWESTEN,  Dogm., 
3  AuflL,  i.  §§  96—272;  J.  H.  A.  EBRARD,  C/irisll.  Do*m.  (1851),  i.  §  17—51  ;  H.  E. 
VIXKE,  Theol.  Dogm.,  i.  (1853),  p.  116,  sqq.  ;  HASE,  Huttcrns  Rediv,  10  Aufl.  (1862), 
§§  19 — 27;  LUTHARDT,  Comp.  des  Dogm.  (1865),  §  17 — 23.  In  connection  with  these 
sections  see  the  different  monographs  on  the  chief  persons  named  in  them. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

The  date  from  which  men  began  more  expressly  to  treat  of  the  history  of  Christian 
Dogmatics. — Why  has  the  doctrinal  investigation  of  the  truths  of  salvation  never  been  able  to 
entirely  rest  in  any  age? — What  is  the  reason  of  so  little  systematisation  in  the  first  centuries  ? 
— Survey  and  estimation  of  the  labours  of  the  earliest  apologists. — St.  Paul,  Origen, 
Augustine,  as  dogmatists. — Smaller  treatises. — The  Compilers. — General  characteristics  of 
the  dogmatic  efforts  of  the  first  seven  centuries. 


SECTION  XII. — DEVELOPMENT. 

During  and  after  the  eighth  century,  Christian  Dogmatics,  as  a 
whole,  was  cultivated  systematically,  and  developed  dialectically, 
in  a  greater  degree  than  before,  under  the  varying  influence  of  the 
Platonic  and  the  Aristotelian  philosophy.  The  noblest  representa- 
tives of  the  Scholasticism  and  Mysticism  of  the  middle  ages  tried 
their  strength  on  the  materials  handed  down  to  them,  partly  in 
collecting,  defining,  and  proving  them  ;  partly  in  refining,  sup- 
plementing, and  defending  them.  If  we  compare  this  period 
with  the  preceding,  the  second  period  of  this  history  may  be  called, 
on  this  account,  a  period  of  development  ;  though  it  cannot  by 
any  means  be  denied  that  this  development  was  more  and  more 
continued  in  a  direction  which  rendered  a  reformation  of  the 
Church,  as  well  as  also  of  this  part  of  the  science,  of  continually  in- 
creasing need. 

i.  The  relative  poverty  of  the  history  of  this  science  in  the  first  seven 
centuries  was  succeeded  by  a  relative  abundance  in  the  following  seven. 
Johannes  Damascenus  (f  754)  appears  with  his  "E/cSoo-u  d/cpi^is  TT}S 
s,  and  by  this  work  gains  for  himself  the  honourable  name 


32  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

of  the  Father  of  Systematic  Theology.  In  it  he  collected  the  dogmatical 
sentences  of  the  two  Gregories,  Basil  the  Great,  and  other  Greek  fathers, 
and  united  them  in  one  well-combined  whole.  His  work,  a  portion 
only  of  his  n^  -yvuxrews,  divided  by  himself  into  a  hundred  chapters,  and 
afterwards  into  four  books,  is  of  special  importance  for  Christology  and  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  In  the  last  he,  however,  had  but  few,  and  those 
less  important,  followers.  He  who  in  this  era  wishes  to  observe  the 
development  of  Dogmatics  must  turn  his  eye  to  the  West,  where  John 
Scotus  Erigena  (t  after  877),  not  unfairly  called  the  Origen  of  the  West, 
and  specially  famous  for  his  five  books,  De  Divisions  Natures,  prepared  the 
way  for  a  new  state  of  things.  Along  with  him  we  must  place  Alcuin,  the 
zealous  ally  of  Charlemagne,  who  is  worthy  of  notice,  as  far  as  Dogmatics 
is  concerned,  for  his  three  books,  De  fide  sanctee  et  individuce  Trinitatis. 

2.  Scholasticism    now   devotes   itself  expressly   to    systematizing   the 
traditional  Church  doctrine,  by  the  aid  of  the   philosophy  of  Aristotle, 
looked  upon  as  the  John  the  Baptist  of  Heathenism  (precursor  Christi  in 
naturalibus).     Conspicuous  at  the  head  of  its  representatives  is  Anselm, 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury  (I  1109),  the  Augustine  of  the  middle  ages,  of 
great  influence,  not  only  for  his  Monologium  and  Proslogium,  but  even 
more  for  his  essay,  Cur  Deus  homo,  and  most  of  all  for  his  theological 
principle,  Noji  queer o  intelligere  ut  credam  sed  credo  ut  intelligam.    "  Volo  me 
perducas  hue." — Tis  thus  he  explains  his  chap.  xxv.  of  his  Cur  Deus  homo — 

"  ut  rationabili  necessitate  intelligam  esse  oportere  omnia  ilia,  quce  nobis 
fides  Catholica  de  Christo  credere  preecepit."  In  him,  too,  we  see  the 
Realism  which  defends  the  reality  of  general  ideas  against  Roscellin  and 
Peter  Abelard  (t  1142).  In  this  last,  who  maintained  the  principle,  nil 
credi  posse,  nisi  prius  intellectual  sit,  dogma  meets  with  an  acute  antagonist, 
and  Nominalism  a  powerful  ally.  Along  with  his  Theologia  Christiana,  we 
must  here  make  special  mention  of  the  work  of  another  congenial  spirit, 
the  renowned  Peter  Lombard,  the  well-known  Magister  Sententiarum,  who 
clung  much  closer,  however,  than  Abelard  to  the  standpoint  of  ecclesiastical 
orthodoxy.  His  IV  Libri  Sententiarum,  prepared,  according  to  his  own 
words,  "  in  multo  labore  et  sudore,"  made  him  the  forerunner  of  the  later 
Sententiarii,  who  collected  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  into  single  Sententice, 
derived  from  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  and  arranged  systematically. 

3.  The  golden  age  of  Scholasticism,  which  was  of  paramount  importance 
for  Christian  Dogmatics,  begins  in  the  thirteenth  century.     Contemporary 
with,    and  subsequent   to,  the   Sententiarii,  the  Summistce    are  seen,  so 
called  after  the  Summa  universe?  Theologiee  of  the  Franciscan  Alexander 
Hales  (t  1245).    His  renown  is  eclipsed  by  that  of  the  Dominican  Albertus 
Magnus  (t  1280),  who,  in  addition  to  Commentaries  on  Aristotle  and 
Peter  Lombard,  published  his  own  Summa  Theologice.     The  Partcs  were 
divided  into  Tractatus,  these  into  Qucestiones,  these  into  membra,  and  the 
membra  into  articulee,  particulee,  and  sub-particitlce,  an  architectural  building 
of  severely  symmetrical  beauty.     He,  however,  was  surpassed  in  his  turn 
by  his  disciple,  Thomas,  Count  of  Aquino  (t  1274),  whose  Summa  totius 
Theologia,  divided  into  three  parts  (God,  Man,  the  person  and  work  of 
Christ),  within  half  a  century  after  his  death,  procured  him  the  honour  of 
canonisation,  and  remained  of  decisive  influence  on  the  development  of 


DEVELOPMENT.  ,3 

the  doctrine  of  the  Romish  Church.  His  force,  as  well  as  that  of 
other  scholastics,  lay  not  so  much  in  the  material  as  in  the  formal,  mere 
in  the  classification  than  the  exposition  of  truth.  Science  is  entirely,  in 
the  service  of  that  Church,  deemed  infallible.  Its  special  occupation  is 
to  make  the  most  subtle  definitions,  acute  distinctions,  and  logical  arrange- 
ment of  the  subjects.  The  categories  of  Aristotle,  suspected  sometimes  in 
their  physical,  but  never  in  their  dialectical  value,  direct  the  investigation  of 
which  generally  the  conclusion  was  already  fixed  a  priori.  The  identity  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church  with  that  of  Holy  Scripture  and  the  most 
renowned  Fathers  was  generally  taken  for  granted,  but  seldom  proved. 
When  men  cannot  descend  into  the  depths,  they  proportionately  busy 
themselves  in  the  breadth,  and  betake  themselves  to  subtilties  which  later 
on  in  the  history  of  dogma  obtain  a  sad  renown.  Dogmatics  becomes 
ever  more  and  more  a  merely  dialectical  development  of  traditional  ideas. 
A  blind  belief  in  authority  is  the  danger  which  threatens  Realism,  an 
unbridled  scepticism  that  which  threatens  Nominalism.  Matters  by  no 
means  improved  when  the  Quodlibetarii  arose  against  the  Summistse  (the 
Dominicans).  They  were  followers  of  the  Franciscan  John  Duns  Scotus, 
the  doctor  subtilis  (f  1308),  the  defender  of  the  immaculate  conception,  the 
glory  of  his  age,  and  by  his  barbarisms  the  corrupter  of  its  language ;  a 
pupil  of  Aristotle,  of  such  a  degree,  that,  as  was  said,  the  philosopher,  if 
he  had  lived  in  later  times,  would  have  desired  to  be  taught  by  him.  His 
Qucestiones  in  IV  Libr.  Sentt.,  and  Qtuestiona  Quodlibeticce,  entertain  their 
readers  with  the  investigation  of  the  Quidditas,  the  Hsecceitas,  the  Incir- 
cumscriptibilitas,  etc.,  of  the  subjects  on  which  he  treated,  through  which 
the  dignity  of  science  too  often  perished  in  a  sea  of  subtilties.  No  one 
condemned  this  sophistry  more  keenly  than  one  of  the  Franciscans, 
Roger  Bacon,  the  doctor  mirabilis  (t  1294),  who  again  and  again  expressed 
the  ardent  wish  to  see  all  the  books  of  Aristotle  committed  to  the  flames. 

4.  As  a  consequence  of  this  we  see  Scholasticism  decay.  The  supremacy 
of  Nominalism  increases,  and  along  with  it  the  wide  separation  of  philosophy 
and  theology.     This  was  specially  effected  by  the  influence  of  William 
Durandus  (Dr.  resolutissimus,  f  1334),  and  of  William  Occam  (Dr.  invin- 
cibilis,  I  1334),  who  sought  in  the  authority  of  the  Church  a  counterpoise 
to  the  results  of  free  criticism.     Occam  may  deservedly  be  called  a  pure 
type  of  Nominalism.     "  Science  has  only  to  do  with  phenomena  which  it 
observes;  that  which  lies  beyond  this  is  the  object  of  belief  alone."     Thus 
true  philosophy  of  the  Divine  is  inconceivable,  and  that  which  theology 
declares  of  God  rests  solely  on  the  authority  of  the  Church.     The  whole 
system  resolves  itself  into  a  probabilism,  which  even  undermines   to   its 
very  depth  the  principles  of  moral  life.     This  Nominalism,  represented  by 
Peter  d'Ail'ly  and  John  Gerson,  was  victorious  at  Paris ;  but  at  Oxford, 
Realism  was  defended  by  Wycliffe ;  in  Germany,  by  Huss.     The  very  last 
of  the  so-called  scholastid,  G.  Biel  (f  1495),  the  commentator  on  Occam, 
was  an  out  and  out  Nominalist. 

5.  For  Apologetics  less  was  done  in  this  second  period  than  in  the 
first ;  and  this  is  natural,  for  Christianity  had  been  established,  heathenism 
partially    conquered,    partially  the   object   of  practical   missionary   zeal. 
Against   the  Jews  wrote  Agobert,   Archbishop  of  Lyons,  Abelard,  and 

D 


34  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

Rupert  of  Deutz ;  against  the  Mohammedans,  Euthymius  Zigabenus,  Peter 
of  Clugny,  and  afterwards  yEneas  Sylvius.  On  the  other  hand,  we  now 
see  individual  dogmas,  (e.g.,  the  dogma  of  the  sacraments,)  which  formerly 
had  been  neglected,  developed  in  a  much  higher  degree.  In  general, 
the  theology  of  Scholasticism,  in  after  times  so  often  and  so  very  unfairly 
treated,  (e.g.,  by  Semler  and  others,)  merits  the  eulogy  of  Ullmann,  that 
"  it  has  been  at  its  beginning  a  real  scientific  advance ;  in  its  entire 
course  a  great  dialectical  training  school  for  western  humanity  5  in  its 
completion  a  stately  monument  of  the  human  spirit,  artistically  worked  out 
like  a  Gothic  dome." 

6.  Mysticism  meanwhile  presents  a  more  satisfactory  scene  to  our  view. 
At  the  head  of  this  movement  stands  Bernard  of  Clairvaux  (Dr.  mellifluus, 
t  1153)?  the  renowned  opponent  of  Abelard,  advocate    of  the  Pauline 
doctrine  of  justification,  and  himself  a  living  evidence  of  the  force  of  his 
theological   principle,    "Tantum    Deus   cognoscitur,    quantum    diligitur." 
Though  he  left  no  dogmatic  work  properly  so  called,  by  letters,  sermons, 
and  essays  he  has  had  salutary  influence  on  the  development  of  Dogmatics. 
In  a  certain  sense  we  might  call  him  the  Pascal  of  his  time.     Even  before 
his  time,  a  better  way  had  been  attempted  in  the  convent  school  of  St. 
Victor,  at  Paris.     His  friend,  Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  called  by  his  contem- 
poraries a  second  Augustine,  who  wrote  De  Sacrammtis  fidei  Christiana, 
had    enunciated  the    great   axiom,  "De  veritate   quisque  potest  videre, 
quantum  est.''     Still  more  inclined  than  he  to  the  principles  of  Mysticism 
was   Richard   (f  1173)    the   prior   of  the  convent;    who   attempted   the 
development  of  Mysticism   in   a   philosophical  manner.     His   successor, 
Walther  (1180),  shows  himself  a  passionate  enemy  of  Scholasticism,  and 
wrote  against  its  four  most  celebrated  representatives  at  the  University  in 
Paris,  in  his  treatise,  Contra  quatuor  labyrinthos.     The  renowned  Francis 
Bonaventura  must  not  be  forgotten  here  (Dr.  seraphicus,  f  1274),  whose 
Breviloquium  the  pious  Gerson  wished  to  introduce  generally  ;  an  "  Israelite 
indeed, "  as  his  contemporaries  called  him,  "  in  whom  Adam'  seemed  not 
to  have  sinned,"  and  who  also  favoured  a  more  mystic  tendency.     Not  to 
mention    again  the  wonder  of  Oxford,    Roger  Bacon,  who  lashed  with 
severity  the  profound  ignorance  hidden  under  the  appearance  of  science, 
and  sought  to  prepare  the  way  for  a  better  method  than  that  of  Scholas- 
ticism. 

7.  Mysticism,  under  the  support  of  these  influences,  begins  to  lead  the 
way  to  a  better  Dogmatics,  that  of  the  Reformation.    Among   these  fore- 
runners we  dare  scarcely  give  a  place  to  Eckart  (t  1329),  whose  speculative 
tendency  was  lost  in  a  misty  Pantheism,  and  in  this  respect  has  not  unjustly 
been  condemned  by  Rome.     We  would  rather  mention  here,  along  with 
Ruysbroeck  and  H.  Suso,  John  Tauler  (Dr.  sublimis  et  illuminatus,  t  1361), 
the  mighty  preacher,  of  whom  Luther  bore  witness  that  he  had  nowhere 
found  a  sounder  and  more  evangelical  theology.     Besides,  the  writer  of 
the  golden  little  book  upon  "  German  Theology,"  and  the  author  of  the 
Imitatio  Christi,  in  every  respect  the  obedient  son  of  his   Church,  but  not 
the  less,  by  his  practico-my,tic  tendency,  the  herald  of  a  brighter  day. 
More  powerfully,  too,  is  this  better  era  predicted  by  the  properly  so-called 
forerunners  of  the  Reformation,  by  Wycliffe  (f  1384),  in  his  Triatogus ;  by 


REFORMATION.  35 

Gerson  (f  1429,  doctor  Christianissimus),  in  his  Considerationes  de  TJieol. 
Myst. ;  by  I.  van  Goch  (11475),  m  k\&Diafogus  de  quatuor  erroribus,  and  m 
his  essay  De  libcrtate  Christiana;  by  I.  van\Vesel(f  1481),  adv.  indulgent ias 
dejejunio,  de  potentate  Ecd. ;  and  specially  John  Wessel  (lux  mundi,  magister 
controversiarum,  t  ^489),  and  the  brothers  of  the  common  life  with  him. 
All  do  not  go  as  far  as  Wyclifte,  when  he  declared  "  Si  essent  centum 
papa2  et  omnes  fratres  versi  essent  in  cardinales,  non  deberet  concedi  sen- 
tentiee  suae  in  materia  fklei,  nisi  de  quanto  se  fundaverit  in  Scriptura."  But 
all  are  at  one  in  founding  Dogmatics  on  firmer  ground  than  that  of  a  varying 
tradition ;  and  in  putting  an  end  to  the  ever  sharper  Dualism  between 
belief  and  knowledge  which  brought  both  Church  and  theology  to  the 
very  verge  of  destruction. 

Compare,  beside  the  best  monographs  of  the  persons  already  named  (IlASSE  on  An- 
selm,  NEANDER  on  Bernard  of  Clairvaux,  MARTENSEN  on  Dr.  Eckart,  etc.),  the  articles 
Scholastische  Theol.  und  Mystik  in  Herzog,  R.E.  Also,  A.  PIERSON,  Diss.  Theol.  de 
Realismo  et  Nominalismo  (1854)  ;  C.  ULLMANN,  Reformers  before  the  Reformation, 
Eng.  Trans.  On  WyclifTe,  DE  RUEVER  GRONEMAN,  Diss.  Theol.  (1837)  /  and  further, 
R.  VAUGHAN,  Life  of  Wycliffe,  2  vols.  (1831);  and  especially  G.  V.  LECHLER,  Joli.  v. 
Wiclif  und  die  Vorgeschichte  der  Reformation,  2  vols.  (1873).  On  Bonaventura  as  a 
Dogmatist,  an  essay  of  HOLLENBERG  in  Theol.  Stud.  u.  Kritik  (1868). 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

What  was  the  cause  of  the  increasing  decay  in  Dogmatics  in  the  East  after  John  of 
Damascus? — Plato  and  Aristotle  in  their  relation  to  the  treatment  of  dogma. — Importance 
of  Anselm  in  this  sphere. — The  conflict  between  Realism  and  Nominalism — Mysticism  in 
its  various  evolutions. — The  attempts  to  reconcile  Scholasticism  and  Mysticism — The 
relative  gains  and  losses  of  Dogmatics  at  the  end  of  this  period,  in  comparison  with  the 
former. — Necessity  of  Reform,  even  in  this  respect,  ever  more  clearly  recognised. 


SECTION   XIII. — REFORMATION. 

Prepared  by  the  better  tendencies  and  the  courageous  witnesses 
(to  the  faith)  of  earlier  times,  the  reformation  of  doctrine  by  and 
in  consequence  of  the  Reformation  of  the  Church  in  the  sixteenth 
century  has  been  both  many-sided  and  salutary.  The  founders  of 
the  Reformed,  as  well  as  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  were  at  the  same 
time  their  first  dogmatists,  often  in  this  domain  also  imitated,  but 
never  surpassed,  by  their  fellow- believers  and  followers.  Even  the 
opposition,  which  the  Reformation  excited  has  had  a  partially 
favourable  influence  on  the  development  of  Dogmatics.  The  gain 
would  have  been  still  greater,  had  not  this  development  been  only 
too  quickly  hindered  by  the  mutual  divisions  of  the  Protestants  and 
the  degeneration  of  the  spirit  of  the  Reformation. 

D  2 


36  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

i  The  Reformation  has  purified,  not  only  the  Christian  faith  itself,  but 
also  its  doctrine.  It  gave  to  Dogmatics  a  freedom,  stability,  simplicity, 
and  fertility,  such  as  it  had  never  known  under  the  iron  sceptre  of  Scho- 
lasticism. We  meet  with  countless  traces  of  this  fourfold  blessing,  whether 
we  cast  'our  glance  on  the  Lutheran,  Reformed,  or  even  on  the  Romish 
Church. 

2.  The  services  which  Luther  has  rendered  to  the  doctrine  of  faith  are 
beyond  value,  both  by  means  of  his  opposition  to  Scholasticism  and  by 
his  advocacy  of  the  utterly  neglected  truth  of  justification  by  faith. 
Attempts  have  been  made  to  construct  out  of  his  numerous  writings  of 
different  periods  a  kind  of  dogmatic  edifice,  by  arranging  in  certain  order 
his  utterances  concerning  God,  man,  Christ,  etc.,  and  we  may  also  learn 
his  own  belief  from  his  two  catechisms,  as  well  as  from  the  articles  of 
Torgau  and  Smalkald  which  he  has  written ;  but  still  Luther  was  never  the 
man  to  shine  as  a  dogmatist  properly  so  called.  The  father  of  the  Dog- 
matics of  his  Church  was  Melancthon,  whose  Loci  Communes,  composed 
originally  for  his  own  use,  first  published  in  1521,  and  then  from  time  to 
time  altered  and  enlarged,  were  published  for  the  last  time  under  his 
inspection  in  1543.  This  is  a  book  which,  even  before  the  death  of  its 
author,  had  been  reprinted  nearly  eighty  times  in  various  editions,  which 
Luther  had  declared  to  be  deserving,  not  merely  of  immortality,  but  almost 
of  a  place  in  the  canon ;  and  which,  in  the  subsequent  alterations  of  its 
Contents,  may  be  called  the  very  mirror  of  the  dogmatic  progress  ex- 
perienced by  the  author  himself.  Like  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  after- 
wards, it  proceeded,  not  from  theological,  but  from  anthropological  prin- 
ciples, and  in  various  ways  exhibited  an  eminently  practical  character. 
Its  contents  are  at  the  same  time  dogmatic  and  ethical :  its  demonstration 
biblical ;  its  type  of  doctrine  in  some  degree  a  middle  link  between 
the  purely  Lutheran  and  the  strict  Calvinistic  teaching.  For  almost 
an  entire  century  these  Loci  served  as  the  basis  and  model  of  the  dogmatic 
teaching  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  They  were  commenteti  upon  by 
Victorinus  Strigil  (t  1569);  Nic.  Seilnecker  (t  1592),  who  first  added  the 
so-called  Prolegomena  to  the  Dogmatics  of  the  Lutheran  Church ;  and 
specially  by  the  most  renowned  dogmatist  of  this  circle,  Martin  Chemnitz, 
whose  lectures  on  the  Loci  were  published  by  his  pupil  and  successor,  P. 
Leyser,  after  the  death  of  his  master  (t  1586). 

3.  On  the  field  of  the  Swiss  Reformation  a  fresh  dogmatic  life  is  quickly 
seen.  The  essay  of  Zwingle,  De  vera  et  falsa  Rtligione  (1525),  may  be  pointed 
out  as  a  first  revelation  of  this,  the  more  because  it,  when  compared  with 
the  Loci,  makes  the  peculiarity  of  the  Reformed  conception  and  study  of 
doctrine  already  evident.  In  this  respect  also  his  Christ,  fidei  brevis  et  clara 
expositio  (1536)  is  of  importance.  His  renown  was,  however,  far  over- 
shadowed by  Calvin's  Institutio  Rel.  Chr.,  a  work  of  like  influence  on 
contemporaries  and  posterity  with  the  Loci  of  Melancthon,  but  formally 
and  materially  of  much  higher  literary  and  theological  value.  The  first 
edition  (i  536),  called  by  the  writer  himself  a  "  breve  dumtaxat  Enchiridion," 
consisted  of  only  six  chapters,  the  second  of  seventeen,  while  the  last, 
which  was  revised  by  the  Reformer  himself  (1559),  had  mounted  to  eighty 
chapters.  The  three  principles  of  the  Apostolic  Confession  are  treated  in 


REFORMATION.  37 

the  first  three  books,  while  in  the  fourth  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  and 
the  sacraments  is  discussed.  No  dry  analysis  is  able  'to  give  a  worthy 
idea  of  this  book,  now  much  more  praised  than  read.  Prefaced  by  the 
renowned  letter  of  apology  to  Francis  L,  "  a  vestibule  worthy  its  stately 
edifice,"  it  points  to  the  knowledge  Of  God  as  the  key  to  the  sanctuary  of 
eternal  truth.  While  strictly  systematic  in  its  plan,  it  is  thoroughly 
practical  in  spirit,  the  expression  of  the  authors  personal  belief,  and  entirely 
founded  on  Holy  Scripture,  explained  most  strikingly  by  the  exegete 
Calvin.  The  idea  of  an  independent  and  unchangeable  decree  of  God 
rules  over  every  theory,  accompanied  by  the  deep  feeling  of  the  complete 
damnability  of  sin,  whilst  the  writer  quails  not  for  a  moment  before  the 
consequence  of  any  of  these  tenets.  And  this  leading  idea  is  developed,  not 
in  a  scholastic,  but  in  a  thoroughly  practical  manner,  in  a  style  captivating, 
scientific,  thoroughly  theological,  and  in  every  way  human.  No  wonder 
that  under  such  influences  the  Dogmatics  of  the  Reformed  Church  ob- 
tained a  preponderating  Calvinistic  character.  With  a  single  exception, — 
Peter  Martyr  Vermilius  of  Florence,  originally  a  Roman  Catholic,  who 
died  as  Professor  of  Theology  at  Zurich,  whose  Loci  Comm.  Tfieol.  bear 
evidence  of  a  Zwinglian  tendency, — this  character  appears  in  the  dog- 
matical writings  of  Bullinger,  Wolfg.  Musculus  Benj.,  Aretius  (f  1574), 
W.  Bucer,  G.  Hyperius  (t  1564),  P.  Ramus  (t  1572),  specially,  too,  in  Beza 
(t  1605),  in  his  Brevis  Explicatio  totius  Christianisini,  which  gives  a  tho- 
roughly abstract  and  almost  mathematical  tabulated  representation  of 
Calvin's  doctrine  of  predestination,  and  not  last  in  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism,  though  here  it  has  a  thoroughly  practical  tendency.  Its  co- 
redactor,  Olevianus,  published  afterwards  a  short  epitome  of  Calvin's  Insti- 
tutio,  and  J.  Piscator  collected  its  chief  doctrines  into  short  propositions. 

4.  Both  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Dogmatics  of  this  time,  though  in 
a  varying  degree,  deserve  the  eulogy,   "The  subtleties  of  Scholasticism 
fade  before,  the  seriousness  of  life  and  the  simplicity  of  the  Scripture " 
(Hase).    In  learning  the  first  Reformed  Dogmatics  unmistakably  excels  the 
Lutheran  ;   the  latter,  on  the  contrary,  has  more  freshness  and  biblical 
simplicity.     Both  take  their  stand  on  Holy  Scripture,  but  the  Reformed 
is  still  more  independent  of  tradition  than  the  Lutheran.     Both  wage  war 
against  anti-Christian  principles,  the  Lutheran  against  Judaistic  hypocrisy, 
the  Reformed  against  pagan  deification  of  the  creature.      Both  glorify  the 
grace  of  God ;  but  at  Wittenberg  the  question,  How  are  we  saved  ?   at 
Geneva,  Who  is  the  Saviour?  stands  in  the  foreground  of  investigation. 
In  the  Lutheran  there  speaks  the  joy,  in  the  Reformed  the  earnestness  of 
belief;  the  former  is  more  a  matter  of  the  Church,  the  latter  of  the  school 
Both  within  their  circle  excite  sympathy,  without  it  they  call  forth  reaction. 

5.  The  Reformation  has  had  a  good  effect  on  the  dogmatic  life  even  in 
the  Romish  Church.     We  can  here,  after  the  declarations  of  the  Council  of 
Trent  (1545 — 1563),  scarcely  speak  of  a  proper  development  of  doctrine, 
yet  even  here  we  see  something  more  than  a  dead  uniformity.     "  The 
Reformation  has  gradually  delivered  the  Romish  Church  from  the  dominion 
of  the  Romish   Curia,   and   the  contact  with  the  Evangelic  Church  has 
furthered  scientific  investigations;  it  has  destroyed  much  which  would  have 
remained  without  the  Reformation,  and  called  into  life  much  which  (without 


38  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

it)  would  never  have  existed  "  (Ellendorf).  It  may  be  enough  to  mention 
the  Dominican  Melchior  Canus  (t  1660),  who  in  XII  Libri  Loc.  Theol., 
combated  the  scholastic  method  of  the  Jesuits.  Among  the  dogmatists  of 
tliis  latter  order  we  must  specially  mention  Peter  Canisius,  Alphonse 
Salmeron,  J.  Maldonatus,  Frans.  Suarez,  Gabriel  Vasquez,  Martin  Becan, 
and  others,  and  specially  Cardinal  Bellarmine  (t  1621),  "  la  meilleure  plume 
de  son  temps  en  matiere  de  controverse"  (Bayle),  who  defended  the  Romish 
dogma  with  so  much  acuteness,  and  at  the  same  time  with  so  much 
moderation,  that  he  was  opposed,  not  only  by  Protestants,  but  even  by 
Romanists.  But  above  all,  while  anticipating  a  later  period,  we  mention 
here  the  eagle  of  Meaux,  the  brilliant  J.  B.  Bossuet  (t  1704),  whose 
renown  throws  all  others  into  the  shade,  just  as  his  influence  surpassed  that 
of  others,  as  much  by  the  talent  with  which  he  idealised  Catholicism  in  his 
Exposition  dela  Doctrine  de  ?E«L  Cath.  (1672),  as  by  the  tact  with  which  he, 
in  his  Histoire  des  variations  de  FEgl.  Protest.,  brought  to  light  the  weak 
points  of  his  opponents. 

6.  The  sects  and  heresies  which  appear  during  this  century  have  been 
of  as  little  benefit  to  the  normal  development  of  dogmatic  science  as  to. 
the  progress  of  the  Evangelical  Church.     Among  the  Anabaptists  and  their 
supporters  we  cannot  speak  of  scientific  life  ;  and  even  for  Servetus  we  can 
hardly  claim  a  place  among  dogmatists,    properly  so  called.     The   anti- 
trinitarian  tendency  of  this  epoch  appears  first  in  its  full  extent  in  the  works 
of  the  Socinian  theologians,  collected  in  the  Bibliotheca  fratrum  Polonontm 
(1656).     Besides  this,  the  catechism  of  Racov  (1609),  and  the  Summa  Rel. 
Chr.  (1611)  of  F.  Socinus,  is  the  best   known  source  of  a  tendency  which 
has  afterwards,  without  injustice,  been    called  the  common  cradle  of  the 
later  Rationalism  and  Supranaturalism.      It  represents  the  reaction,  not  so 
much  of  the  conscience  as  of  the   so-called  sound  reason  against  Rome, 
but  also  against  the  mystery  of  Christianity  itself.     The  praise  which  the 
Socinian  dogmatists  and  their  allies   claimed  for  themselves,  that  they  had 
been  true  sons  of  the  Reformers,   and  continuers   of  their  work,  cannot 
possibly  be  granted  to  them  by  an  impartial  criticism.     But  even  those  who 
can    agree   neither  with   their    principles    nor   with    their    results,    must 
acknowledge  that  they  resisted  Scholasticism  with  all  their  might,  furthered 
the  independence  of  Christian  dogmatic  investigation,  and  le"d  theologians 
of  the  Church  to  a  by  no  means  superfluous  criticism  of  their  tenets,  as  well 
as  of  the  proofs  thereof. 

7.  When  we  thus,  at  the  end  of  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  draw 
our    comparison    with    the    preceding    time,    we    observe   unmistakable 
progress.     Dogmatics  is  studied  with  a  restless  energy,  not  only  more,  but 
better  than  before.     In  the  Reformed  Church  especially  the  influence  of  a 
better  exegesis  is  felt ;  and   even  where  the  strife  gradually  becomes  more 
violent,  irenical  endeavours  are  not  wanting.     We  call  to  mind  here,  among 
others,'  our  renowned  countryman,  Francis  Junius  (t  1602)  who  not  only 
published  Theses  of  importance,  but  also  an  essay,  De  verd  Theologia,  and 
an  Irenicon;  and  the  German  Theologian  of  Peace,  Rupert  Melden,  to  whom 
we  owe  the  well-known  proverb,  "/«  necessariis  unitas"  etc.;2  and  specially 

1  Compare  as  to  him,  Liicke's  Monograph. 


DEGENERATION.  39 

the  ornament  of  the  University  of  Helmstadt,  G.  Calixtus  (1634),  who, 
inspired  by  a  spirit  of  real  Christian  moderation,  did  not  even  dread  the 
reproach  of  syncretism,  if  he  might  only  prepare  the  way  for  a  union  of  the 
divided  churches.  A  century  after  the  first  publication  of  the  Loci  of 
Melancthon,  J.  Gerhard  (t  1637)  brought  to  an  end  his  complete  elabora- 
tion of  the  legacy  of  the  Reformer,  in  a  manner  which  showed  great  acute- 
ness  joined  with  comparative  moderation.  Yet  this  spirit  became  constantly 
more  rare,  in  opposition  to  the  increasing  hatred  of  religion  which  was 
dividing  the  sons  of  the  Reformation.  The  age  of  confessions  was  followed 
by  that  of  compendium^  ;  the  energy  and  freshness  of  belief  by  a  renewed 
Scholasticism ;  and  in  place  of  the  former  over-rating  of  works,  the  over- 
rating of  knowledge  begins  now  most  powerfully  to  make  its  influence 
felt. 


Compare  W.  GASZ,  Gesch.  der  Protest.  Dogm.,  i.  (1854),  ii.  (1857),  iii.  (1862),  iv. 
(1867)  ;  J.  A.  DORNER,  Gesch.  der  Protest.  Theol.  (1867)  ;  I.  KOSTLIN,  Luth.  Theol.  in 
Hirer  Geschichtl.  Entzvick.  ii.  vol.  (1863);  S.  CRAMER,  Zwingli's  leer  van  hat  Godsd.  gel. 
(1864).  For  CALVIN'S  Institutio,  the  compact  edition  of  A.  THOLUCK,  and  the  Eng. 
Ed.  of  Calvin  Translation  Society,  3  vols.,  (Edin.  1845,  1846) ;  and  also  an  important 
essay  of  J.  KOSTLIN  in  the  Theol.  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1868,  i.  ;  on  the  Romanist  Dog- 
matics of  this  and  the  preceding  age,  F.  A.  STAUDENMAIER,  Die  Christl,  Dogmatik, 
i.  (1844),  p.  201,  sqq.  ;  A.  HERRLINGER,  Studien  iiber  die  Theologie  Mdancthon's  in  the 
Jahrbuchfiir  Deutsch.  Theol.  (1870),  iii.,  303,  sqq. 


POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Further  elucidation  of  the  influence  of  the  Reformation  on  Dogmatics. — The  reason 
why  Melancthon,  and  not  Luther,  is  the  dogmatist  of  the  Church  ;  and  the  differences 
which  are  generally  discovered  between  the  earlier  and  later  editions  of  the  Loci. — 
The  Institutes  of  Calvin  ;  their  history  and  import. — The  influence  of  the  Reformation  on 
the  study  of  Dogmatics  in  the  Romish  Church. — History  and  criticism  of  Socinian 
Dogmatics. — Reaction  of  newly  awakened  dogmatism. 


SECTION   XIV. — DEGENERATION. 

The  development  of  Dogmatics  in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth 
centuries  has,  on  the  whole,  only  imperfectly  corresponded  to  that 
which  the  heroic  age  of  the  Reformation  had  given  reasonable 
ground  to  expect.  Under  the  varying  influences,  first  of  Scholasti- 
cism, then  of  Rationalism,  and  occasionally  of  Mysticism  in  its 
various  forms,  that  development  can  neither  proceed  prosperously 
nor  lead  to  satisfactory  results.  The  Christian-philosophic  investi- 
gation of  truth  at  the  commencement  of  this  epoch  is  hindered  by 


40  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

theological  dogmatism  ;  at  its  close  is  led  away  into  many  an 
erroneous  path  by  philosophic  criticism.  In  the  study  of  Christian 
Dogmatics,  too,  within  and  without  the  Reformed  Churches,  in 
the^Netherlands  as  well  as  everywhere  else,  the  continually  in- 
creasing degeneration  of  the  original  spirit  of  Christianity  and  of 
the  Reformation  is  clearly  seen ;  not  without  the  counterbalancing 
influence  of  some  eminent  men  of  a  true  reforming  spirit,  who, 
coming  out  as  healers  of  a  period  of  disease,  prove  themselves 
at  the  same  time  the  prophets  of  a  better  epoch. 

1.  The  history  of  Dogmatics  is  like  a  stream,  becoming  ever  wider.     It 
is  not  possible,  nor  is  it  absolutely  necessary,  to  mention  all  the  names  and 
tendencies.      It   is   sufficient  to  observe  the  most  important  phenomena 
which  occur  between   the  Reformation  and   the  commencement  of  the 
present  century.     And  then  it  can  be  scarcely  doubted  that  "  Degenera- 
tion "  is  the  best  name  for  a  period  which  answered  but  too  little  to  that 
which  the  sixteenth  century  had  promised  ;   degeneration,  of  course,  in 
the  relative,  and  not  in  the  absolute,  sense  of  the  word,  accompanied  with 
not  a  little  which  is  good  and  gladdening,  and  not  without  the  intermittent 
appearance  of  phenomena  which  in  many  respects  may  be  called  "  signs  of 
life."    And  yet  only  too  often  there  is  a  state  of  things  which  reminds  one 
of  a  cloudy  noon  after  a  bright  morning,  and  which  strikes  us  again  and 
again,  as  we  look  on  the  varying  influence  of  Scholasticism,  Rationalism, 
and  Mysticism. 

2.  Scholasticism  took  its  rise  in  the  Lutheran  Church  from  the  one-sided 
attempts  to  preserve  untainted  and  to  hand  over  to  posterity  the  entrusted 
pledge  of  a  "pure  doctrine."     Gradually  Melancthon  is  suspected,  and 
Luther  left  behind.     Ecclesiastical  system  is  tightened  into  a  logico-formal- 
istic  corset,  and  every  new  dispute  elicits  more  subtle  definitions.     The 
subject-matter  of  doctrine,  formerly  synthetically  presented,  is  now  analyti- 
cally deduced  by  the  definitive  and  causal  method,  and  an  increasing  sche- 
matism promotes  dogmatic  clearness,  but  also — sophistry.     Three  names 
may  here  suffice, — Leonard  Hutter,  professor  at  Heidelberg,  and  a  pillar 
of   Lutheran    orthodoxy,   who,   at    the    command    of    Christian   II.    of 
Saxony,  wrote  a  dogmatic  compendium   (1610),  defended  the   Formula 
Concordia  in  its  entirety,  and  reproached  Melancthon  with  his  "  defectio 
a  puritate  doctrina?  coelestis;"     A.  Calovius  (t  1686),  the  opponent  of 
Calixtus,  whose  morning  prayer  was,    "  Domine  imple  me  odio  haereti- 
corum;"  and  J.  A.   Quenstadt  (t  1688),  whose   Theologia  Polemica  has 
exercised  so  important  an  influence  on  the  dogmatical  life  of  his  own  and 
succeeding  times,  that  he  has  not  incorrectly  been  called  "  Buchhalter  und 
Schriftfuhrer  seiner  Genossen."     (Tholuck.) 

3.  In  the  Reformed  Church,  too,  we  see,  partly  even  prior  to,  but  specially 
after,  the  triumph  of  orthodoxy  at  the  Synod  of  Dordt  (1618),  Scholasti- 
cism find  its  representatives  in  dogmatists  such  as  Keckerman  at  Heidel- 
berg (f  1609);  Wolleb  at  Basle  (t  1629) ;  H.  Alting  (t  1644),  and  Maresius 


DEGENERATION.  4! 

at  Groningen  (t  1673);  Maccovius  at  Franeker  (t  1644);  but  particularly 
Gilbert  Voetius,  chosen  Professor  at  Utrecht  in  1634  (t  1676),  whose  influ- 
ence on  the  Dogmatics  of  the  Netherlandish  Reformed  Church  was  akin  to 
that  of  Quenstadt  on  the  Lutheran,  a.  violent  opponent  of  Des  Cartes  and 
Coccejus,  but  not  less  opposed  to  the' Labadists  and  corrupt  Mystics;  a  man 
of  piety,  acuteness,  and  learning,  of  restless  activity,  and  great  influence, — 
both  loved  and  hated  as  few  men  have  been.  In  his  Selectee  Disputt.,\.  vols. 
(1648),  especially,  he  has  handed  down  the  results  of  his  own  investigation, 
and,  among  others,  has  left  in  William  a  Brakel,  the  renowned  author  of 
Reasonable  Theology  (f  1711),  a  distinguished  disciple  and  fellow-thinker. 
Jn  this  school  exegesis  served  merely  for  Dogmatics,  as  this  in  its  turn  was 
made  serviceable  to  a  closer  definition  and  stricter  defence  of  orthodoxy 
even  in  the  most  unimportant  particulars.  On  the  opposite  side,  in  John 
Coccejus,  professor  at  Leyden  (t  1669),  we  observe  a  powerful  effort  to  set 
Dogmatics  free  from  the  yoke  of  Scholasticism,  and  to  establish  it  upon  a 
pure  biblical  basis.  His  Federal  method  sought  to  combine  the  whole 
doctrine  of  faith  within  the  compass  of  God's  covenant  wich  man,  in  which 
we  find  the  key  to  all  His  words  and  works.  A  firm  supporter  of  the 
mechanical  theory  of  inspiration,  he  nevertheless,  in  the  domain  of 
typical  and  prophetical  Theology,  was  only  too  often  involved  in  ingenious 
subtleties,  and  too  much  lost  sight  of  the  distinction  between  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments ;  but  still  he  gave  a  powerful  impulse  to  a  movement 
which  in  many  respects  might  be  called  one  of  progress.  His  Sutnma 
Doctrine  (1648),  for  which  no  publisher  could  at  first  be  found,  soon  became 
the  text-book  of  a  school,  which  not  only  in  the  Netherlands,  but  in.  Ger- 
many too,  found  distinguished  supporters  and  imitators  (Puffendorf,  Jager, 
and  others),  and  which  for  some  time  divided  the  Netherlands  Church  into 
two  violently  conflicting  parties.  Cocceianism  was  partly  developed,  partly 
simplified  and  amended,  by  A.  Heidanus,  at  Leyden  (t  1678),  F.  Burman 
(t  1679),  and  M-  Leidecker  (f  1721),  at  Utrecht,  who  made  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  the  basis  of  his  dogmatic  investigation,  and  some  others.  Among 
the  most  distinguished  and  at  the  same  time  thoroughly  independent 
theologians  of  this  period  must  be  specially  enumerated  F.  A.  Lampe 
(t  1729).  As  little  Cocceian  as  Voetian,  he  forms,  as  it  were,  the  connect- 
ing link  with  that  catalogue  of  properly  biblical  theologians,  at  whose 
head  is  so  justly  placed  the  name  of  Hermann  Witsius  (f  1708),  named  in 
the  same  breath  with  those  of  the  two  Vitringas  and  Venema. 

4.  A  completely  different  path  was  trodden  by  the  Reformed  theologians 
of  the  University  of  Saumur.  They  were  distinguished  by  an  attempt  towards 
a  more  moderate  conception  of  the  churchly  idea  of  predestination,  towards 
a  more  exegetical  method,  and  towards  a  closer  union  of  Dogmatics  and 
Ethics.  In  the  footsteps  of  Cameron  (t  1629)  we  see  the  so-called 
hypothetic  universalism  defended  by  his  pupil  and  fellow-thinker,  Moses 
Amyraut  (t  1646),  with  the  not  unnatural  consequence  that  Determinism 
lost  not  only  somewhat  of  its  harshness,  but  also  of  its  rigid  consistency. 
No  wonder  that  the  systematic  Calvinists  first  suspected  and  then  opposed 
him  and  his  pupils,  Ludov.  Capellus  and  J.  de  la  Place.  This  opposition 
was  made  by  Rivet  (f  165 1 )  and  Fr.  Spanheim  (t  1 701),  and  particularly  by 
the  learned  and  acute  J.  H.  Heidecker  at  Zurich  (t  1698),  the  compiler  of 


42  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

the  Formula  Consensus,  directed  specially  against  the  professors  at  Saumur, 
but  only  accepted  by  a  few  Swiss  cantons  for  a  short  time.  The  teaching 
of  Amyraut  was  independently  continued  by  his  pupil,  Claude  Payon 
(+1665),  while  P.  Durieu  (t  1713)  resisted  it  with  powerful  effect.  The 
Swiss  orthodoxy,  on  the  other  hand,  after  it  had  spoken  its  last  word  in 
acknowledging  the  inspiration  even  of  the  Hebrew  vowel  points,  was  fol- 
lowed by  the  prevalence  of  a  more  moderate  tendency,  specially  represented 
in  a  fitting  manner  by  Bcned.  Pictet  (t  1724^,  J-  A-  Turretine  (t  173?) 
[a  son  of  the  ultra-orthodox  Franc.  Turret],  and  Sam.  Werenfels  (t  1740). 

5.  We  find  at  this  period  the  study  of  Dogmatics  carried  on  by  the 
Arminians  from  their  standpoint  with  much  zeal  and  skill.     Among  the 
dogmatists    of  this  school    stand  out  in  pjrticular  Episcopius  (t  1643), 
Curcellaeus  (1-1659),  and  Philip  of  Limborch  (1-1714),  whose  Theology  has 
not  incorrectly  gained  the  renown  of  being  biblical,  irenical,  and  practical. 
We  see  these  men,  while  relatively  free  from  Scholasticism,  tread  a  more 
exegetical  path,  guided  by  the  light  of  Hugo  Grotius,  their  most  distin- 
guished apologist  and  commentator.     Even  where  we  cannot  admit  their 
premises,  we  can  hardly  deny  that  their  method  is  far  superior  to  that  of 
many  of  their  contemporaries.     We  must  at  least  call  it  unjust  to  name 
them,  as  has  often  been  done,  in  the  same  breath  with  the  Socinians,  though 
we  cannot  deny  that  at  least  their  later  representatives  have  been  also 
the  forerunners  of  Rationalism. 

6.  There  is  but  little  to  call  for  remark  in  the  history  of  Dogmatics  in  Eng- 
land during  this  period.     The  Scotchman,  R.  Barclay  (11676),  gave  to  the 
doctrines  of  the  Quakers,  as  far  as  that  could  be  done,  scientific  form  and 
symbolic  expression. — The  dogmatic  life  in  the  Romish  Church  felt  con- 
stantly the  influence  of  Scholasticism  and  Jesuitism,  opposed  by  Jansenists 
rather  in  a  practico-ascetic,  than  in  a  strictly  philosophic  form. — In  the  Greek 
Church,  attempts  to  sow  there  the  seed  of  the  Reformation  proved  ineffec- 
tual.    We  see  a  more  free  and  crypto-Calvinistic  teaching  reverenced  by  the 
•patriarch  Cyril  Lucaris  (11638),  but  at  the  cost  of  his  life,  and  that  after- 
wards (1642)  prepared  as  a  confession  of  faith  for  the  Russians  by  the  Met- 
ropolitan Peter  Mogilas,  and  sanctioned  in  1672  by  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem, 
favoured  far  more  the  principle  of  stability  than  the  striving  after  progress. 

7.  A  powerful  reaction  against  Scholasticism  was  specially  urged  on  in 
Germany  by  the  Pietistic  School.     Even  before  this,  Joh.  Val.    Andreas 
(t  1654)  had  with  deep  earnestness  waged  war  against  a  dead  orthodoxy, 
while  Spener  (1-1705)  with  increasing  force  had  proclaimed  the  absolute  ne- 
cessity of  a  theologia  reqciiiiorum.     Against  the  dead  objectivity  of  ecclesias- 
tical doctrine  he  asserted  and  maintained  the  right  of  a  Christian  subjec- 
tivity, and  exalted  above  the  so-called  official  theology  the  prayerful  study 
of  Holy  Scripture.     Though  his  care  was  infinitely  less  about  the  doctrine 
than  about  the  life,  he  yet  attempted,  specially  in  the  domain  of  Eschato- 
logy,  partially  to  fill  in  that  which  in  his  view  was  wanting  in  the  Dogmatics 
of  Luther.     His  views  on  the  Millennium  were  afterwards  systematically 
worked  out  by  two  of  his  followers,  Petersen  and  Dippel.     In  this  respect 
his  work  was  specially  continued  by  A.  H.  Francke  (t  1727),  who  pointed 
out  to  his  disciples  the  energetic  and  practical  way  as  the  most  excellent. 
In  the  violent  contest  between  Pietism  and  Scholasticism,  self-defence  soon 


DEGENERATION.  43 

became  for  the  latter  an  object  of  duty  and  importance.  This  contest  was 
principally  carried  on  by  Bened.  Carpzov  (11699),  anc^  tne  reaction  which 
was  thus  elicited  made  the  Pietists  even  still  more  one-sided  in  many  of 
their  views.  Many  of  the  accusations  on  both  sides  rested  without  doubt 
on  misunderstandings  ;  but  that  Pietism  had  both  aroused  and  strengthened 
in  many  minds  the  repugnance  to  Scholasticism  is  evident  from  the  writings 
of  D.  Hollaz  (fi7i3),  who  was  not  incorrectly  called  "the  last  orthodox 
dogmatist  of  the  Lutheran  Church  of  his  time,"  and  who  had  accepted  not 
a  little  which  was  good  from  his  opponents.  Pietism  has  exercised  great 
influence,  just  because  it  has  been  externally  subdued. 

8.  The  dogmatic  development  of  this  epoch  was  not  less  unfavourably 
influenced  by  Rationalism  than  by  Scholasticism  ;  of  course  not  without 
many  a  bright  light   showing   itself  amid   the   increasing  darkness.       In 
Wiirtemberg   in   the   eighteenth  century   a   biblical  theosophic  tendency 
appears  in  men  such  as  J.  A.  Bengel  (+1752)  and  his  fellow-thinker,  J.  C. 
Oetinger  (11782),  who  considered  life  as  not  only  the  fruit,  but  also  as 
the  starting-point  and  basis  of  doctrine.     A  more  independent  historical 
direction  was  broached  at  Jena  by  J.  F.  Buddeus  (t  1729),  who  grants  to 
the  history  of  dogma  more  influence  than  had  ever  before  been  allowed 
to  it.     J.  A.  Ernesti  (+1781)  works  at  Leipzig  in  a  certain  degree  favour- 
ablv,  since  he  insists  on  an  accurate  exegetical  investigation  of  the  so- 
called  dicta  probantia,  and  submits  some  ecclesiastical  dogmas  to  exegetic 
criticism  with  a  good  result.     His  fellow-thinker  in  the  domain  of  the  Old 
Testament  at  Gottingen,  J.  D.  Michaelis  (f  1760),  deserves  even  as  a  dog- 
matist the  name  of  being  relatively  conservative.    Yet  in  him  especially  we 
see  newer  ideas  coming  forth,  jointly  with  the   old,  which  preluded  im- 
portant revolutions  in  the  world  of  doctrine. 

9.  In  this  period,  more  than  in  former  years,  Dogmatics  begins  to  feel 
the  varying  influence  of  the  different  philosophic  schools.    Like  the  school 
of  Des  Cartes  in  Holland  (B.  Bekker,  f  1695),  so  did  that  of  Wolf  and 
Leibnitz,  in  Germany,  make  its  powerful  influence  felt  on  the  students 
of  Christian  doctrine.      Among   the  theologians   of  the  school  of  Wolf, 
Bernsau  (1-1763),  Stapfer  (fi775),  Dan.  Wyttenbach  (fi779),  J.  C.  Beck 
(11785),  and  S.   Endemann  (f  1789),  deserve  particular  mention.     In  its 
origin  certainly  this  school  was  not  hostile  to  Christianity ;  its  first  followers 
were  orthodox;  the  renowned  S.  J.  Baumgarten  (ti757)  saw  300  or  400 
listeners    standing  round  his   chair,  and  \vas  a  rigid  conservative.      The 
new  method  seemed  even  to  be  able  to  demonstrate  the  truth  of  dogma 
so  clearly,  that  nothing  more  could  be  offered  in  opposition  to  it.     But 
the  very  striving  after  accuracy  of  idea  and  definition  forced  in  an  intel- 
lectualism,    by   which    truth  was    more   and    more    separated    from   life. 
Natural  theology  is  first   placed  as  an  independent  science  alongside  of 
revealed,  at  whose  expense  it  is  soon  exalted  and  developed.     Philosophy, 
formerly  regarded  as  the  humble  handmaid  of  Theology,  is  now  honoured 
and  obeyed  as  a  queen  ;  reason  is  recognised  as  the  supreme  judge  in 
the   realm   of  truth,    and   independence   as  to  doctrine  is  succeeded  by 
indifference,  and  by-and-by  by  repugnance.     It  is  here  as  impossible  to 
give  an  outline  of  the  gradual  development  of  Rationalism  as  of  the  earlier 
Deism,  but  when  we  require  a  representative  name  to  which  we  can  best 


44 


CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 


join  a  review  of  this  period,  not  one  strikes  us  more  than  that  of  J.  S, 
Sender  (t  1 791),  the  man  who,  "though  he  did  not  found  a  school,  yet  brought 
with  him  the  fire,  from  which  the  sparks  were  to  rise  which  might  fall  upon 
the  powder  lying  everywhere  ready  at  hand."    A  theologian  of  conscientious 
mind  and  of  astounding  reading,  but  at  the  same  time  of  a  restless  spirit, 
seizing  with  a  revolutionary  hand  on  almost  every -field  of  thought,  and 
with  an  eye  rather  for  ever-varying  forms,  than  a  heart  for  the  spirit  and 
essence  of  Christianity.     Among  the  "  little  Judaic  local  ideas  "   of  the 
New  Testament,  above  which  he  considers  he  must  raise  himself,  he  brings, 
t.  %.,  the  idea  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  hesitates  not  to  assert  that  Jesus 
and   His  apostles,  though   they  knew   better,  constantly  accommodated 
themselves  to  the  mistaken  ideas  of  their  contemporaries.     Owing  to  the 
influence  of  Semler,  the  distinction  between  Church  and  Bible  doctrine  be- 
came constantly  more  an  irreconcilable  opposition  ;  while  from  the  last  every- 
thing was  rejected  which  was  not  sufficiently  enlightened  for  the  heroes  of 
"  Enlightenment."      The  ecclesiastical  system,  of  which  even  a  Lessing 
(t  1781)  had  spoken  with  undisguised  respect,  is  treated  with  increasing 
disrespect,  as  "a  confused  work  of  blockheads  and  semi-philosophers,"  and 
under  the  influence  of  the  last-named  thinker  a  sharp  distinction  is  made 
between  purely  historical  and  so-called  religious  truth,  which  could  but 
work  in  a  most  thoroughly  injurious  manner  for  the  development  of  doc- 
trine so  much  desired.     The  historical  basis  of  the  entire  doctrinal  system 
is  soon  audaciously  attacked  (  Wolfenb.  Fragm.};  periodical  literature  for  years 
together  is  given  up  to  the  systematic  service  of  unbelief  (Allgcm.  Deutsche 
National  Biblioth.  of  Nicolai);  and  the  frivolous  spirit  of  the  times,  which 
spread  from  Paris  to  the  Court  at  Berlin,  as  well  as  to  other  places,  declares 
with  ever-increasing  force  war  against  the  severity   of  the  Gospel.     In 
place  of  the  earlier  yearning  for  system,  we  see  now  Indifferentism  and 
Utilitarianism.     Steinbart  (f  1809),  from  his  standpoint  of  the  happiness 
of  mankind,  praises  Christianity  as  the  best  teaching  in  this  respect  for  the 
needs  of  his  enlightened  fellow-countrymen,  but  at  the  same  time  teaches 
"  that  Augustine,  on  account  of  his  ignorance  in  religion,  was  not  worthy 
of  a  place  in  the  Church  or  in  its  history."     The  whole  science  of  Dogma- 
tics is  reduced  to  a  popular  philosophy  of  religion,  in  which  the  substance 
of  the  Gospel  was  utterly  lost.     A  Christian  ought,  above  all,  to  be  "  a 
rational  worshipper  of  God ;"  his  motto  was,  "  Culture  for  time  and  eternity 
by  the  aid  of  religion,"  and  the  really  sound  reason  was  the  supreme  autho- 
rity in  the  most  subtle  questions  respecting  life.     As  heroes,  and  partly  as 
victims  of  this  teaching,  we  may  mention  A.  S.  Reimarus  (fi76i),  K.  F. 
Bahrdt  (fi792),  J.  A.  Eberhard  (fiSog).      In  opposition  to  these  bold 
attacks,    the   modest   resistance  of  the   "  chilled   orthodoxy "   offered  by 
Zacharia  (t  1777),  Stosch  (t  1781),  Mursinna  (t  1795),  and  others,  had  no 
preponderating  weight,  however  much  we  may  admire  the  attempts  at  more 
biblical  simplicity.      Apologetics  was  now  more  carefully  and  zealously 
studied  than   Dogmatics  ;  in   England,   by   Lardner,   Addison,    Newton, 
Berkeley,  and  others  ;  in  Germany,  by  Haller,  Leo,  Nosselt,  Lilienthal,  and 
others. 

10.  Rationalism  begins  to  exhibit  a  more  fitting  and  scientific  character 
in  the  treatment  of  Dogmatics  through  the  labours  of  Kant  (t  1804)  and 


DEGENERATION.  .          45 

his  followers.  By  means  of  a  strict  criticism  of  man's  capacity  for  know- 
ledge, he  showed  the  impossibility  of  such  an  accurate  demonstration  of 
God  and  divine  things  as  the  school  of  Wolf  had  arrived  at.  But  he  at- 
tempted to  restore  by  another  method  that  which  he  had  thus  lost  and 
demolished;  for  practical  reason  centinued  to  postulate  virtue,  and  its 
reward  by  a  righteous  God  in  a  better  life  than  this.  Thus,  finally,  the 
whole  of  theology  was  reduced  to  the  well-known  trilogy  of  God,  virtue, 
and  immortality.  The  Gospel  now  became  the  highest  moral  law ;  Christ 
the  spotless  ideal,  and  thus  far  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  the  Church  the  efficient 
means  of  maintaining  moral  order.  Not  many  Dogmatists,  however, 
have  been  pure  Kantians.  The  most  distinguished  were  Tieftrunk  (f  1837) 
Von  Ammon  (f  1849),  and  for  a  time  Staudlin  (t  1826).  These  are  the 
most  worthy  representatives  of  a  school  which  recognised  the  individual 
reason  as  the  highest  authority  in  the  realm  of  truth,  and  therefore  sub- 
mitted to  its  supremacy  the  subject-matter  of  Christian  revelation. — Very 
quickly,  however,  we  see  this  standpoint  succeeded  by  the  so-call.ed  "  Com- 
mon Rationalism,"  which  found  its  supreme  arbiter  in  the  (unreasonable) 
reason,  denied  the  necessity  of  higher  revelation  and  redemption,  and  reduced 
the  entire  doctrine  of  revelation  to  that  of  mere  providence.  At  first  its 
interpreters  addicted  themselves  to  the  method  and  results  of  critical  philo- 
sophy, but  they  did  not  always  retain  the  severely  moral  fervour  of  their 
Master.  Here  we  must  note  the  names  and  writings  of  Henke  (f  1809), 
Eckerman  (t  1836),  and  Schmid  (t  1812),  but  more  particularly  the  still 
better  known  J.  F.  Rohr  (t  1848),  the  influential  writer  of  Letters  con- 
cerning Rationalism  (1813),  and  H.  E.  G.  Paulus  (t  1851),  of  Heidelberg, 
the  supporter  of  the  (un)natural  explanation  of  sacred  history,  and  J.  A. 
L.  Wegscheider  (+  1849),  who  had  dedicated  "Pits  manibus  Lutheri"  his 
Inslitutiones  Theol.  Dogm.,  in  which  every  principle  of  the  Gospel  and  of 
the  Reformation  was  systematically  denied.  Notwithstanding  differences 
in  principles  or  accessories,  all  these  men  agreed  in  regarding  Christianity 
only  as  the  historical  introduction  or  the  providential  confirmation  of  mere 
reasonable  truth.  Along  with  the  idea  of  special  revelation,  that  of  miracle 
was  now  naturally  given  up  ;  sin  was  henceforth  called  imperfection  ;  redemp- 
tion, enlightenment ;  faith,  the  conviction  of  reason  :  conversion  became 
amendment,  Christ  a  teacher  of  morality,  the  Church  a  school  of  disci- 
pline and  development,  baptism  a  form,  the  Lord's  Supper  a  feast  of 
brethren  ;  whilst  the  hope  of  eternal  life, — above  all,  that  of  individual 
immortality  and  a  happy  meeting  again, — was  not  seldom  depicted  with 
sentimental  pathos. 

n.  Against  this  Rationalism  arose  a  Supranaturalism,  which  we  must 
properly  distinguish  from  the  old  orthodox  Church  faith.  It  recognised 
the  necessity  and  reality  of  a  particular  revelation,  given  in  the  teaching  of 
Christ,  and  specially  confirmed  by  miracles  and  portents  on  the  part  of 
God.  With  this  primal  belief  in  revelation  there  was  joined,  however,  the 
evident  attempt  to  rub  off  as  much  as  could  be  done  from  the  sharp 
corners  of  revealed  truth,  and  to  recommend  it  specially  on  account  of  its 
tendency  to  practical  value.  The  path  for  this  teaching  had  been  already 
opened  by  the  Institutiones  of  Doederlein  (1780),  the  Epitome  of  Moms 
(1787),  and  other  essays ;  but  it  derived  its  importance  from  the  names  of 


46  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

Storr  (t  1805),  F.  V.  Reinhard  (t  1812),  and  the  venerable  Professor  T.  C. 
F.  Steudel  (t  1837),  at  Tubingen.  The  Vorlesungen  of  the  pious  G.  C. 
Knapp,  published  in  1827,  may  be  partially  brought  under  this  section. 
Between  it  and  its  antipodes  some,  as  may  be  expected,  were  not  wanting, 
who  wished  to  unite  both,  and  who,  on  this  account,  received  the  name  of 
rationalistic  supranaturalists.  To  them  belonged  (with  others)  H.  A. 
Schott(t  i835),H.G.Tzschirner(ti828),  and  K.G.  Bretschneider  (t  1848), 
author  of  a  Systematische  Entwicklung,  etc.,  and  of  several  other  more 
popular  dogmatic  works,  which  have  been  translated  and  used  in  Holland, 
where  also  this  school  has  been  for  many  years  represented  by  the 
God°elcerde  Bydragen* 

12.  When  Rationalism  was  exhibiting  such  activity,  it  was  impossible 
that  Mysticism  should  be  silent.  In  fact,  it  was  felt  during  this  period, 
as  well  in  the  bosom  of  the  Romish  Church  as  in  that  of  the  various 
divisions  of  the  Evangelical.  With  regard  to  the  Dogmatics  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  the  Spanish  priest,  M.  Molinos  (t  1690)  must  not  be 
left  unmentioned  here,  who  set  himself  in  opposition  to  the  Jesuits,  and 
caused  the  outbreak  of  the  Quietistic  disputes  in  France,  where  Fenelon 
(t  1715),  whose  doctrine  of  pure  love  found  a  bitter  antagonist  in  Bossuet, 
is  the  representative  of  Dogmatic  mysticism  in  its  noblest  form.  In  Ger- 
many the  mystic  Angelus  Silesius  (properly  Scheffler,  t  1677)  expressed 
similar  thoughts  in  his  Cherubinischen  Wdndersmann,  in  a  manner  which,  in 
poetical  forms,  reminds  us  but  too  much  of  Pantheism. — In  the  Lutheran 
Church  Mysticism  was  united  with  Theosopy  and  Asceticism,  and  not  always 
held  very  closely  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.  As  in  the  former  period 
Theophr.  Paracelsus  (t  1541)  and  V.  Weigel  (t  1588)  had  been  influential, 
so  in  the  present  epoch  did  J.  Bohme  (f  1620)  exercise  a  powerful  effect  in 
this  line  of  thought. — For  some  reasons,  and  failing  a  better  place,  we  might 
mention  here  Count  Zinzendorf  (f  1760),  the  ardent  advocate  of  the  mystic 
"  theology  of  blood  and  wounds ;"  and  E.  Swedenborg  (f  1772),  the  founder 
of  the  Church  of  the  New  Jerusalem,  in  whom  the  hidden  rationalistic 
character  of  the  Theosophy  is  seen  in  a  surprising  degree.  In  the  Reformed 
Church  we  see  the  principle  of  Mysticism  brought  over  from  the  Romish, 
in  the  Netherlands,  by  Jean  de  la  Badie  (f  1674)  and  his  followers;  in 
France,  by  P.  Poiret  (t  1719),  the  disciple  of  Ant.  Bourignon  (t  1680).  It 
does  not,  however,  exercise  any  preponderating  influence  on  the  course  of 
Dogmatics,  and  the  whole  contest  between  Rationalism  and  Suprana- 
turalism  had  had  much  more  effect  in  the  Lutheran  than  in  the  Reformed 
Church. 

13.  With  particular  regard  to  the  Netherlands,  we  see  the  perceptible 
decline  of  orthodoxy  during  the  course  of  the  eighteenth  century ;  whilst, 
though  heresy  on  single  points  (H.  A.  Roell,  t  1718)  was  felt,  Dogmatics 
preserves  its  strong  supranatural  character.  As  a  type  of  this  teaching  we 
may  point  to  the  Institutiones  of  B.  Broes  (1788),  of  Leyden,  and 
specially  to  the  Pars.  TheoL  Chr.  Theoretica  of  H.  MuntinChe  of 
Gromngen,  first  published  in  1801,  which,  orthodox  in  principle,  biblical  in 
colouring,  was  not  free  from  concessions  which  subjected  its  author  to  the 
suspicion  of  heresy.  Stricter  was  the  teaching  which  was  represented  at 
Utrecht  by  Gilb.  Bonnet  and  Herm.  Royaards,  the  former  in  a  more  philo- 


DEGENERATION.  47 

sophical,  the  latter  in  a  m  -re  exegetical  manner ;  these  were  both  for  a  while 
strongly  opposed  by  their  colleague,  J.  Heringa  El.  z.  (t  1840),  who,  at  first 
declared  heretical,  and  afterwards  suspected  as  too  narrow-minded,  has  all 
his  life  claimed  the  honour  of  being  a  biblical  theologian.  The  only 
theologian  of  the  Reformed  Church,  of  this  period,  by  whom  an  actually 
rationalistic  Dogmatics  was  taught  in  the  schools  and  from  the  pulpit,  is 
J.  H.  Regenbogen,  author  of  the  somewhat  superficial  Christelijke  Godge- 
leerdheid  published  in  1811.  This  school  of  thought  has  found  its  most 
powerful  support  among  the  Baptist,  Lutheran,  and  Remonstrant  Theolo- 
gians, as  well  as  in  the  influence  of  political  Liberalism  and  the  spirit 
of  revolution. 

14.  When  we  combine  our  survey  into  one  general  view,  the  result  of  our 
glance  at  this  period  cannot  be  as  satisfactory  as  that  of  the  former  time.  We 
must  notwithstanding,  in  conclusion,  not  omitthe  few  nameswhich,  hithertoun- 
mentioned,  have  not  only  appeared  with  honour  in  their  circle  in  this  domain 
of  thought,  but  have  also  been  the  prelude  of  a  better  future.  Bl.  Pascal 
(f  1669),  in  France,  obtained  among  the  apologists  of  Christianity  a  place 
not  merely  honourable,  but  unique.  In  England,  in  the  midst  of  all  the 
methodistical  onesidedness,  we  find  the  doctrine  of  free  grace  popularly 
but  powerfully  defended,  specially  by  Whitefield  (t  1770).  In  Switzerland, 
J.  C.  Lavater  (t  1801),  both  from  the  pulpit  and  his  writings,  maintained 
the  Christo-centrical  character  of  doctrine  with  all  the  warth  of  a  loving 
heart.  In  Germany,  too — not  to  speak  of  the  increasing  influence  exercised 
in  part  at  least  on  our  subject  by  men  like  Gellert,  Klopstock,  and  Hamann 
— a  man  like  J.  G.  Herder  (11803)  nas  n°t  lived  and  worked  without  effect 
on  dogmatical  study.  The  most  special  dogmatic  ideas  in  his  writings 
were  collected  by  one  of  his  friends  in  1805.  Neither  rationalist  nor  supra- 
naturalist,  in  the  common  sense  of  the  word,  he  was,  particularly  in  his  first 
period,  Christian  humanitarian  par  excellence,  who,  on  the  one  side,  called 
out  the  spirit  of  free  inquiry,  but  on  the  other,  by  means  of  his  deeply 
religious  spirit,  offered  to  many  of  his  contemporaries  a  beneficial  antidote 
to  the  unbelief  of  some  and  the  indifference  of  others.  Although  in  many 
ways  he  is  no  longer  at  one  with  us,  with  him  we  may  fittingly  close  this 
portion  of  our  survey,  since,  while  the  light  of  his  age,  he  at  the  same  time 
is  the  herald  of  a  new  and  in  many  respects  better  time. 

Compare,  beside  the  very  important  works  of  GASZ  and  DORNER,  mentioned  in  sec- 
tion xiii.,  specially  THOI.UCK,  Vorgeschiclite  des  Ration.  \.  ii.  (1853,  1861)  ;  Gcschichte 
tics  J\atu»i.,  I'cnnischte  Schriften  (1839),  pp.  I — 147  ;  on  Voetius,  J.  J.  VAN  OoSTERZi.E, 
article  in  Herzog,  K.  E.  xviii.  ;  on  Coccejus,  the  Theol.  Diss.  of  G.  VAN  GORKOM 
(1856),  and  A.  VAN  DER  FLIER  (1859);  on  Witsius,  HERINGA  (1861);  on  Vitringa,  VAN 
HEEL,  1865  ;  on  Roell,  VAN  HOORN  (1856)  ;  on  A.  Limborch,  A.  DES  AM.  v.  D. 
HOEVEN,  Jr.  (1845)  >  on  Herder,  VAN  DIBBITS  (1852),  and  the  important  monograph 
of  A.  WERNER,  Herder  als  77icolog.  Ein  Beitrag  zur  Geschichte  dcr  Protest.  Theologie 
(1871);  on  Pascal,  WIJNMALEN  (1865);  01  Lampe,  the  monograph  of  THELEMANN 
(1868)  ;  on  Bengel,  a  Vorlesung  of  C.  SEPP  (1848)  ;  on  the  Netherlands  Theology  of  the 
.conclusion  of  this  period,  SEPP'S  prize  essay  (1863) ;  H.  BOUMAN,  De  Godgeleerdheld  en  hare 
bcocfenaars  in  Nederlandenz  (1862),  p.  344,  syy.,  and  the  literature  so  copiously  quoted 
there. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 
How  best  to  explain  the  resurrection  of  Scholasticism  in  the  Protestant  Church  ? — The 


48  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

contest  between  Voetius  and  Ccccejus.— Closer  survey  of  the  Theology  of  Saumur. — The 
collision  between  Orthodoxisrn  and  Pietism.— The  reason  why  Rationalism  has  had  so 
much  more  influence  in  the  Lutheran  than  in  the  Reformed  Church. — The  degree  of 
independent  development  in  the  Dogmatics  of  the  Netherlands  Reformed  Church  of  the 
period. Further  elucidation  ot'some  special  errors  and  morbid  appearances. 


SECTION    XV. — REVIVAL. 

A  new  era,  even  for  Dogmatics,  has  dawned  in  our  ce-ntury, 
which  has  not  incorrectly  been  called  the  century  of  the  regeneration 
of  Christian  Theology.  Instead  of  the  earlier  Rationalism  and 
Supranaturalism,  both  of  which  were  in  their  standpoint  equally  one- 
sided, a  more  exact  and  fruitful  conception  of  the  truth  arose  as 
life  from  God,  historically  revealed  in  Christ,  and  only  learnt  through 
the  light  of  Scripture  by  individual  spiritual  experience.  This 
school  of  thought  in  Dogmatics,  starting  from  Germany,  has  made 
its  influence  felt  in  the  various  Churches  of  other  countries,  and  has 
held  its  own  with  increasing  clearness  and  firmness  against  the 
attacks  of  an  unbelief  becoming  every  day  more  devoid  of  shame. 
Enriched  by  the  wisdom  of  the  past,  and  purified  by  the  ordeal 
of  the  present,  science  strives  restlessly — although  in  countless 
windings  and  not  without  a  strong  reaction — towards  a  fairer  future, 
in  which,  in  even  a  greater  degree  than  before,  she  can  fulfil  her 
undeniable  requirements. 

1.  The  title  prefixed  to  this  section  is  not  meant  to  imply  an  uncondi- 
tional eulogy,  but  simply  to  give  evidence  of  the  aroused  scientific  lile  of  the 
piesent  as  definitely  contrasted  with  the  repose  and  decay  of  the  pre- 
ceding century.  We  do  not,  of  course,  in  any  way  deny  that  this  revival  has 
not  been  accompanied  by  new  retrogression  and  dangerous  d  sease. 

2.  The  name  of  F.  Schleiermacher  (f  1834),  the  German  Flato,  is  closely 
connected  with  the  history  of  the  revival  of  Dogmatics  in  Germany.    In  esti- 
mating this  theologian,  who  is  much  more  eulogised  than  read,  men  have 
not  always  kept  within  due  bounds,  and  have  ofttimes  but  too  quickly  con- 
ceded an  eternal  import  to  that  which  possesses   great  historical  value. 
At  any  rate,  the  claim  that  every  thorough  dogmatic  investigation  must 
always  take  its  beginning  from  Schleiermacher,  is  entirely  one-sided,  and  \vill 
not  readily  be  granted  by  him  who  has  studied  his  Christl.  Glaubeiislchre  ( ist 
ed.  1821),  carefully,  and  with  the  Gospel  in  his  hand.  Yet,  on  the  other,  it  is 
impossible  to  deny  that  he  has  given  to  the  scientific  movements  of  his  time 
"  the  impulse  to  an  eternal  motion,"  and,  as  another  John  the  Baptist,  may 


REVIVAL.  49 

be  called  a  new  forerunner  of  Christ.  He  has  inspired  with  a  fresh  reve- 
rence for  religion  (Reden  tiber  die  Rel.,  ist  ed.,  1799)  a  century  numbed  with 
the  chill  breath  of  Rationalism,  and  has  recommended  Christianity  as  a 
personal  union  of  life  with  Christ,  in  whom  he  saw  the  highest  ideal  of 
humanity,  the  deliverer  from  the  power  of  sin.  Originally  not  free  from 
Pantheism,  he  has  gradually  come  nigher  to  a  Christian  Theism,  and  has 
secured  for  religion  its  immovable  place  in  the  inmost  sanctuary  of  the 
human  consciousness.  The  so  often  misunderstood,  besides  the  so  often 
disowned,  cardinal  principle  of  Reformed  Dogmatics,  man's  unlimited  de- 
pendence upon  God  in  the  work  of  salvation,  has  been  again  brought  by 
him  into  reverence,  though  he  has  developed  it  in  a  peculiar  manner ;  and 
the  ethical  character  of  revealed  truth,  though  accompanied  with  a  lamentable 
misconception  of  its  historic  side,  has  by  him  been  emphatically  brought 
to  the  front.  We  cannot  be  at  all  surprised  that  with  the  wealth  of  his 
spirit,  and  the  many-sidedness  of  his  influence,  even  his  pupils  and  fellow- 
thinkers,  who  started  from  his  principles,  have  constantly  struck  off  into 
their  own  paths.  This  is  true,  especially  of  the  (incomplete)  Dogmatik  of 
A.  D.  C.  Twesten  (i.  ii.,  i.  i  Ausg.,  1826),  who  inclined  more  to  an  ec- 
clesiastical orthodoxy;  and  of  C.  I.  Nitszch  (f  1868),  whose  System  der 
Christ!.  Lehre  (i  Ausg.,  1829)  might  be  called  a  vigorous  attempt  to  reunite 
Dogmatics  and  Ethics. 

3.  While  Schleiermacher  attempted  generally  to  secure  for  Theology  an 
independent  place  by  the  side  of  Philosophy,  there  were  many  others 
whose  activity  was  inspired  by  the  preponderating  influence  of  a  definite 
philosophic  school.  In  connexion  with  the  principles  of  Jacobi,  as  deve- 
loped by  Fries,  we  see  Dogmatics  studied  by  W.  M.  L.  de  Wette  (11849), 
a  pious  mind,  of  a  critical  spirit,  with  a  tendency  to  Scepticism  and  Idealism 
(Lehrb.  d.  C/ir.  Dogmat.,  i  Ausg.,  1816;  Wesen  des  Chr.  Glaubens,  1846); 
while  it  was  treated  by  L.  J.  Riickert  (Christ?.  Philosophic,  1825)  in  the 
spirit  of  the  elder  Fichte.  We  must  call  C.  Daub  (t  1836),  when  we  look  at 
his  Theologumcjia  (1806)  and  other  dogmatic  writings,  an  independent 
thinker  of  the  school  of  Schilling  in  his  first  period.  Marheinecke  (11846), 
particularly  in  his  Dogmat.  Vorlcstingen  (1847),  was  t^6  chief  representative 
of  Hegelianism  in  the  field  of  Dogmatics.  Many  a  follower  of  the  specu- 
lative school  of  thought  was  misled,  though  in  all  good  faith,  with  the  idea 
that  peace  had  now  been  concluded  for  good  between  belief  and  knowledge. 
It  was  asserted  that  Theology  confessed  the  same  truth  in  a  formal  present- 
ment which  Philosophy  acknowledges  in  the  higher  sense  of  a  philosophic 
conception.  This  self-deceit,  however,  could  not  last  long,  and  soon  the 
school  of  Hegel  split  up  into  two  parties,  of  which  the  first  clung  to  the 
laith,  but  daily  lost  in  influence,  whilst  the  other  very  soon  preached  an 
absolute  separation  between  faith  and  knowledge  as  the  highest  wisdom ; 
whilst  both  most  arbitrarily  mistook  the  history  and  the  doctrine  of  Christi- 
anity. The  names  of  D.  F.  Strauss  (Christl.  Glaubensl.,  1840,  1841.,  ii.  Th.), 
Bruno  Bauer,  Feuerbach  (11872),  and  others,  have  acquired  a  sad  celebrity, 
which  renders  further  mention  unnecessary.  According  to  the  blasphemy 
of  the  latter,  we  must  seek  the  secret  of  Theology  exclusively  in  the 
domain  of  Anthropology  —  in  other  words,  religion  becomes  conjecture, 
self-worship  a  duty,  and  the  emancipation  of  the  flesh  is  equal  to  the  highest 

E 


jO  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

triumph  of  the  spirit.  It  is  no  wonder,  when  such  was  the  fruit  of  the  tree, 
that  the  school  of  Hegel  was  the  last  speculative-philosophic  school,  which 
has  exercised  such  preponderating  influence  on  the  Dogmatics  of  later  times. 
T.  A.  Dorner,  however,  in  his  Christology,  has  sho\yn  in  the  most  striking 
manner  that  even  from  the  speculative  standpoint  it  was  possible  to  dedi- 
cate the  most  excellent  gifts  to  the  science  of  faith. 

4.  Without  any  definite  accord  with  a  philosophic  school,  Dogmatics  in 
this  period  was  studied  in  a  free  independent  spirit  by  Theologians  whose 
names  must  not  be  passed  over  in  a  survey  such  as  this.    We  place  them  here 
together,  though  the  teaching  of  the  one  shows  a  more  eclectic,  and  that  of 
the  other  a  more  conciliatory  character.     To  these  belong  Carl  Hase,  pro- 
fessor at  Jena,  a  theological  character  which  could  not  eas:ly  be  inter- 
changed with  any  other.     Genial,  vigorous,  sesthetic,  full  of  sympathy  for 
the  historic  side   of  Christianity,   though  in  no  ways  emancipated  from 
Rationalism,  he  has  even  in  this  domain  sought  and  found  his  way  inde- 
pendently of  others.    He  enriched  science  with  ?a\Evang.  Dogmatik  (i  ed., 
1826),  a  more  popular  Gnosis  (i  ed.,  1827),  and  a  reproduction  of  the 
church  system  according  to  the  necessities  of  our  time  in  the  Hutlcrus 
Redivivus  (i  ed.,  1833);  in  contrast  to  which  we  must  place  Mdancthon 
Redivivus,  an  anonymous  work  in  praise  of  the  ideal  spirit  of  Christianity, 
which  could  not,  however,  gain  so  much  sympathy.     In  addition,  though 
not  as  excelling  his,  must  here  be  mentioned  the  dogmatic  writings  of 
Cramer  (1829),  Baungarten  Crnsius  (1830),  and  F.  F.  Fleck  (1846,  I.),  as 
well  as  the  Philosophische  Dogmatik  (1855)  of  C.  H.  Weisse,  composed  in 
order  to  "  harmonise  "  these  different  schools  of  thought.    A  less  speculative, 
more  rationalistic,  and  historico-critical  character  is  exhibited  in  the  Insti- 
tutio  Theol.  Dogm.  of  Dr.  C.  W.  D.  Grimm  (1848). — Among  the  Apologists 
of  this  period  the  place  of  honour  is  deserved  by  C.  Ullmann  (t  1865;,  a 
Christian  humanist  and  historian,  to  whom  few  are  equal,  for  his  excel- 
lent treatises  on  Die  Siindlosigkdt  Jesu  (i  ed.,  1828),  and  Das  Wcscn  des 
Christenth.  (1845,  i  ed.) ;  and  by  A.  Tholuck,  more  conservative  in  his 
teaching  than  Ullmann,  but  also  still  more  many-sided,  witty,  and  edifying, 
specially  for  his  excellent  works,  Die  wahre  Weihe  des  Zweiflcrs  ( r  Aufl., 
1823),  and  Die  Glaubwurdigk.  d.  Evang.   Gesch.  (i   Aufl.,  1836);  while 
his  friend  and  kindred  thinker,  J.  Miiller,  has  rendered  excellent  service 
to  Dogmatics  in  his  masterly  treatise  on  the  Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin 
(1839). 

5.  A  still  more  definite  biblical  character  is  seen  in  the  Dogmatists 
whom  we  can  regard  as  the  continuers  of  the  former  supranaturalistic  line, 
asA.Hahn(Agw.,  1828),  D.  Bohmer  ( Christ!.  Glaubensivissensch.,  1840-43, 
ii.  Th.).  The  second  volume  has  special  reference  to  the  Glaubaislehre  of 
Strauss.  In  Switzerland  we  see  this  school  of  thought  worthily  represented 
by  J.  L.  S.  Lutz  (Bibl.  Dogm.,  1847) ;  in  Wiirtemberg,  by  J.  T.  Beck,  who 
develops  the  dogmatic  subject-matter  of  Scripture  from  Scripture,  whilst 
he  tries  to  keep  as  far  as  possible  free  from  philosophic  and  modern  ideas, 
and  allies  himself  with  the  earlier  Biblical  Realism  of  Bengel  and  Oetinger 
(Christl.  Lehrwisscnsch.,  i.,  ii.,  1838,  1841).  The  more  popular  Cahver 
Dogmatik  (iv.  Th.,  1854—1858)  may  also  be  brought  into  this  class,  as  also 
to  a  certain  extent  the  Schnftbeweis  of  J.  C.  K.  von  Hoffman  (ii.  Th., 


REVIVAL.  51 

1857 — 1859) ;  in  any  case  a  very  remarkable  attempt  to  justify  the  results 
of  his  own  gnosis  by  an  appeal  to  Holy  Scripture. 

6.  In  other  countries  also  there  was  little  want  of  a  new  treatment  of 
Dogmatics  from  the  ecclesiastical  standpoint.    On  the  side  of  the  Lutheran 
this  was  done,  in  a  strictly  conservative  tone,  chiefly  by  F.  A.   Philippi 
(Kirch/.  Glaubensl.,  iv.  Th.,  1853,  1861),  and  G.  Thomasius  (Christi  Person 
und  Wcrk,  iii.  Th.,  1853,    1861,  Eng.  Trans.  T.  and  T.  Clark),  and  more 
independently  by  C.  F.  A.  Kahnis  (Luth.  Dogm.  3  vols.,  1861,  1868) ;  and 
specially  in  a  brilliant  and  ingenious  manner  in  Denmark  by  H.  L.  Martensen 
(Christian  Dogmatics,  Eng.  Tr.,  1866).     Th.  A.  Liebner  (t  1871)  wrote  the 
first  vol.  of  a  Christi.  Dogmatik,  developed  from  the  Christological  principle 
(1849),  as  well  as  two  Programmata  as  Introductio  in  Dogm.  Chr.  (1854-55). 
As  a  treatise  of  Dogmatics  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Moravians,  the  Evang. 
Glaubenslehrenach  Schrift  und  Erfahrung  of  Herm.  Plitt.  (ii.  Th.,  1863-64) 
deserves  the  highest  appreciation.     The  Reformed  Dogmatics  was  exten- 
sively worked  from  its  original  sources,  and  reproduced  by  H.  Heppe, 
Elberfeld  (1861),  after  this  had  been  before  done  more  subjectively  by  A. 
Ebrard  (i  Ausg.,  1851-52),  in  violent  opposition  to  the  principles  and  results 
of  Al.  Schweitzer  (Die  Glaubenslchre  der  Evangel.  Reform.  Kirche,  ii.  Th., 
1844-47,  Protestant.  Centraldogmen,  ii.  Th.,  1854-56).     Even  the  elaborate 
and  original  dogmatic  work  of  J.    P.  Lange  (iii.  Th.,   1849,  1852)  started 
from    the  Reformed  principles,  whose  subject-matter  he  attempts  in  an 
ingenious  and  clever  manner  to  bring  into  unison  with  the  results  of  later 
thought. 

7.  This  last-mentioned  name  has  unquestionably  brought  us  b?ck  again 
to   a  freer  Christian  speculative  region.       The   striving   after  a  deeper 
conception   of  doctrine   than   seemed   to   be   expressed  in  the  letter  of 
Scripture  or  of  the  Confessions,  attempted  as  it  was  by  some,  could  not  fail 
to  find  an  echo  among  others.      The  witty  J.  F.  von  Meyer  (I  1848) 
author,  with  other  works,  of  the  Blatter  fur  Hohere  Wahrheit  (1830,  1832), 
found  a  distinguished  pupil  in  Rud.  Stier  (f  1867),  "the  Theologian  of  the 
believing  conception  of  Scripture  "  (Hase),  who,  though  he  himself  wrote 
no    Dogmatics,  has   yet  in  more  than   one   instance   had  an   important 
influence  upon  its  study.    We  may  say  the  same,  but  with  more  right,  of  the 
amiable  and  profound  theosoph,  R.  Rothe  (t  1868),  who  by  his  Ethics,  as 
well  as  by  his  Zur  Dogmatik  (edn.  pub.  1863),  and  by  his  Dogmatik  (i.  ii. 
edited  by  Schenkel,  1869,  1870),  has  deserved  the  eulogium  formerly  be- 
stowed by  Cajetan  on  Luther,  "  Habet  profundos  oculos  et  mirabiles  specula- 
tiones  in  capite  suo."   The  (still  unfinished)  essay  of  Ph.  F.  Keerl,  Der  Mensch 
das  Ebenbild  Gottes  (Basel,  ii.  Th.,  1861,  1866)  cannot  be  better  placed  than 
in  this  class.     The  theosophical  school  of  thought,  viewed  generally,  finds 
a  powerful   supporter  in  the  philosophical  principles  of  Fr.  von  Baader 
(t  1841),  whose  Vorlesungen  iiber  speculative  Dogmatik  were  published  much 
earlier,  in  1828,  but  whose  ideas  first  began  to  work  with  influence  after 
his  death.     Among  the  theosophistic  apologists,  the  name  of  the  too  early 
dead  C.  A.  Auberlen  (t  1864)  deserves  to  be  remembered  with  respect, 
specially  for  his  excellent  but  unfinished  apologetical  essay,  Die   Gottl. 
Offenbarung. 

8.  If  the  theosophistic  Dogmatics  cannot  always  escape  the  reproach 

£  2 


52  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

that  it  wishes  to  be  wise  beyond  that  which  is  written,  the  philosophic 
Dogmatics  has  been  studied  by  the  representatives  of  modern  conscious- 
ness in  a  spirit  more  or  less  directly  opposed  to  biblical.  The  most  com- 
plete essay  on  this  side  was  written  by  Dr.  Schenkel,  who  formerly  inclined 
to  a  conservative  and  believing  school  of  thought,  afterwards  composed  Die 
Christl.  Do-m.  vom  Stan<tpunkt  des  Geunsscns  aus  (ii.  Th.  1858,  1859),  and, 
in  opposition  to  Schleiermacher,  sought  to  recommend  conscience  in  place 
of  feeling  as  the  religious  organ.  In  German  Switzerland,  H.  Lang  pub- 
lished in  1858  (and  ed.  1863)  a  Christl.  Dogmatik,  .in  which  Christology 
had  ceased  to  occupy  a  separate  place.  Even  the  Christl.  Glaubenslehre 
of  A.  Schweitzer  (i.  1863,  ii.  i,  2,  1869,  1872)  appeared  as  the  scientific 
expression  of  theological  Modernism,  and  the  Chr.  Dogmatik  of  his  col- 
league, A.  E.  Biedcrmann  (1869),  offered  a  scientific  elaboration  of  the 
Church  Dogma,  which  contradicted  in  a  striking  manner  the  impetuous  cry 
of  many  of  his  own  school  of  thought,  "  No  more  Dogmatics." 

9.  If  we  turn  our  eyes  for  a  moment  from  Germany  to  Switzerland  and 
France,  we  are  met  by  some  important  analogies,  but  also  by  more  than 
one  unusual  phenomenon.  We  must  not  here  speak  of  any  other  before  we 
mention  the  name  of  the  man  who  has  been  not  incorrectly  called  the 
Schleiermacher  of  his  time,  though  his  lucidity  far  surpasses  Schleiermacher's 
profoundness, — A.  Vinet  (11847),  a  personality  of  the  highest  import, 
particularly  for  Ethics,  but  also  for  Apologetics  and  Dogmatics.  As  little 
a  Rationalist  as  a  Mysticist,  he  was  Individualist  and  Spiritualist  in  the 
noblest  sense  of  the  word.  His  peculiarity  consists  in  this,  that  with  a 
full  recognition  of  the  supranatural  origin  of  revealed  truth,  and  of  the 
historical  character  of  Christianity,  he  has  laid  a  too  long  forgotten  stress 
on  its  ethical  as  well  as  its  metaphysical  side.  In  opposition  to  the 
Theology  of  the  former  moderate  supranaturalism  on  the  one  side(Cheneviere 
and  others),  and  that  of  the  so-called  "  Reveil "  on  the  other  (Bost,  Malan, 
Gaussen,  and  others),  he  supported  not  exactly  a  different  conviction,  but 
another  method.  While  setting  aside  the  mechanical  conception  of  the 
authority  of  Scripture,  for  so  many  "le  dogme  des  dogmes,"  he  chose 
conscience  for  his  starting-point,  and  attempted  by  a  specially  psychological 
method  to  bring  down  to  and  into  men  that  which  so  many  had  considered 
as  truth  external  to  and  above  them.  Such  a  man,  a  refined  critic,  and  of 
a  most  elegant  style,  may  be  both  an  inestimable  ally  to  the  conservative 
school  of  thought,  and  also  a  forerunner  of  further  freedom  of  thought, 
reverenced  by  the  liberal-minded.  This  is  now  often  the  case,  and  the 
name  of  Vinet  is  not  seldom  inscribed  on  colours  from  which,  if  he  could 
now  lift  his  head,  he  would  probably  turn  with  aversion.  The  exaggera- 
tion of  the  principle  of  Scripture  in  his  own  immediate  circle  led  the 
talented  Edm.  Scherer  (La  Critique  et  la  Foi,  deux  Lettres,  1850)  on  a 
path  which  was  constantly  declining,  and  on  which  the  name  of  Alex.  Vinet 
was  still  only  one  of  the  first  milestones.  Even  the  new  Strasburg  school 
(whose  organ  is  the  Revue  de  Theologie),  with  T.  Colani  at  its  head,  very 
quickly  passed  that  mark  ;  while  in  that  of  Montauban,  where  the  formerly 
moderate  Supranaturalism  still  found  defenders  most  worthy  of  respect, 
among  others,  in  P.  Jalaguyer  (Le  Principe  Chretien,  1853,  and  other  essays), 
the  spirit  of  Vinet  was  effective  for  the  development  and  maintenance 


REVIVAL.  53 

of  Christian  truth.  As  the  organ  of  the  most  influential  pupils  and  co- 
thinkers  of  Vinet,  the  Revue  Ckr'etienne  of  Edm.  de  Pressense,  and  its 
Bulletin  Theologique,  may  be  pointed  out.  In  the  meantime  the  modern 
supranaturalism  pursues  in  France  and  Switzerland  its  severe  contest  with  the 
naturalistic  negation  (Renan,  Reville,'  Cocquerel)  which,  as  far  as  we  can 
here  still  speak  of  Dogmatics,  aims  at  its  thorough  reconstruction.  But 
the  names  of  Bersier,  Godet,  Astie',  Naville,  and  others,  justify  the  hope 
that  even  there  the  contest  will  not  terminate  without  producing  real  fruit. 
Among  the  Apologists  of  Christianity  against  the  modern  Naturalism,  as 
a  soldier  of  the  old  guard,  N.  Poulain  (t  1868)  has  left  an  irreproachable 
and  honourable  remembrance. 

10.  In  England  and  America  the  spirit  of  the  older  time  wrestles  still, 
with  ever  varying  chances,  against  the  spirit  of  the  later  period,  under  the 
undeniable  influence  of  what  is  done  in  Germany  and  elsewhere.     Among 
the  literature  of  the  latter  country,  Ch.  Hodge,  Systematic  Theology,  3  vols. 
[reprinted,  London,  1871-1873],  is  specially  deserving  of  attention.     In 
opposition  to  the  apologetic  tendency  of  former  years  a  modern  critical 
school  of  thought  (Assays  and  Reviews,   Colenso)  has  been  developed ; 
and    eloquent   interpreters   of   Unitarianism   and   Naturalism  (Channing, 
Parker,  and  others)  boldly  raised  their  voices  at  the  same  time  with  the 
undaunted   defenders   of  the   old   orthodoxy.     As   the   organ   of  a  free, 
believing,  and  at  the  same  time  scientific  school,  more  than  one  magazine, 
but  specially  the   Contemporary  Review,   1866,  gives  a  promise  of  much 
good  in  the  future.     Even  the  still  waters  of  Denmark  and  Sweden  were 
agitated,  and — not  to  speak  of  J.  P.    Mynster — the   name  of  Grundtvig, 
as  well  as  the  discussion  between  Martensen  and  Nielsen,  proves  that  in 
Denmark  at  least  no  dead  stability  can  be  said  to  prevail. 

1 1.  In  the  Romish  Church  also  during  the  present  century  the  study  of 
Dogmatics  has  not  been  suffered  to  rest.     At  times,  under  the  influence 
of  renowned  philosophers  (Hermes,   Giinther,  v.  Baader,  and  others),  it 
found   deserving   students   in    Dobmeyer   (1807),    Brenner  (1815),   Klee 
(t  1840),    and   Staudenmaier   (Christl.    Dogmat.    iii.    Th.,    1844),  and  J. 
von  Kuhn  (Kathol.  Dogm.  i.  ii.,  1869).      Among  the  best  Apologists  of 
our  own  time  J.  F.  von  Deey  \Apologetik  iii.,  BB.  1838 — 1847)  specially 
deserves  mention,   whilst  the  "  Symbolik "  was  treated  by  J.  A.  Mohler 
(t  1838)   in  a  manner  which   most  justly  gained   for   him  the   epitaph 
"Ecclesiae    Solamen."     The    reaction    against    the    superficial    German 
Catholicism  has  been,  in  its  result,  of  advantage  for  the  scientific  life  of 
this  Church. — Far  fewer  signs  of  life  in  this  respect  are  seen  in  the  Greek 
(Russian)  Church,  which  defended  its  Confession  against  the  attacks  of  the 
Jesuits  by  the  mouth  of  the  Imperial  Councillor,  Alex,  de  Stourze,  in  1816. 
Yet  it  possesses,  among  others,  a  more  complete  than  attractive  handbook 
of  this  science,  written  by  the  renowned  Bishop  Macarius,  to  which   an 
extensive  introduction  is  added,    containing    hints   worth   knowing    con- 
cerning the  theological  literature  of  his  country.     ( Theologie  Dogmat.  OrtJw- 
doxe,  par  Macaire,  etc.,  traduit  par  un  Russe,  iii.   vol.,  Paris,   1857 — 1861. 
Cf.  W.  Gass,  Symbolik  der  Gr.  Kirche,  1872.) 

12.  In  the  Netherlands,  too,  the  later  history  of  Dogmatics,  while  it  by  no 
means  speaks  of  stagnation,  cannot  boast  of  quiet  progress.     In  the  first 
third  of  this  century,    the   supranaturalistic  biblical  school,  of  which  we 
have  already  spoken  (§  xiv.  13),  continued  quietly  to  maintain  its  position  _ 


£4  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

in  a  more  scientific  manner  in  the  school  of  Heringa  and  J.  van  Voorst 
(Comp.  Theol.  Chr.  ist  ed.,  1808),  and  in  a  more  popular  form  under  the 
lead  of  L.  Egeling  (De  weg  far  Zalighdd,  2  vol.,  i  ed.,  1820).  The 
orthodox  side  was  also  scientifically  advocated  by  the  learned  follower  of 
Kant,  J.  J.  le  Roy  (De  Godd.  Openbar.,  d.  B.  2  DD.  1829,  1830).  On 
the  other  hand,  traces  of  more  rationalistic  sympathies  appeared,  e.g.,  in 
the  well-known  essay  of  P.  W.  Brouwer  (Bybctteer  aangaande  den  person 
ran  Chrislus,  1826),  and  in  that  of  P.  van  der  Willigen  concerning  Het 
wezen  ties  Christendoms  (i  ed.  1836).  The  Godgd.  Bydragen  continued  also, 
in  the  conflict  about  the  binding  authority  of  the  Confessions,  which  was 
meanwhile  becoming  more  vehement,  to  support  the  defenders  of  free 
thought.  Whilst  thus  among  many  persons  we  find  "  indefiniteness  and 
half-heartedness,"  a  new  phase  was  opened  by  the  appearance  of  the 
Groningen  school,  which  began  in  1837  (and  employs  the  magazine 
Waarheid  in  Liefde  as  its  organ),  and  first  published  its  Compendium 
Dogmatices  et  Apologetices  Christiana  in  1845.  In  contradistinction  from 
the  previous  one-sided  estimation  of  Christian  doctrine,  the  person  of 
Christ  was  made  by  them  the  centre  of  their  system,  and  increased  stress 
was  laid  upon  life  in  his  communion.  No  wonder  that  this  school  found 
on  one  side  eager  supporters,  and  on  the  other  frequent  contradiction.  In 
its  conception  of  God  it  was  Unitarian,  in  its  Hamartology  almost  semi- 
Pelagian,  in  its  Christology  Arian-Apollinarian ;  its  entire  estimation 
of  the  Gospel  had  a  more  paedagogic  than  soteriological  colouring,  whilst 
its  Demonclogy  was  wanting,  and  its  Eschatology  was  concluded  by  the 
doctrine  of  the  restitution  of  all  things.  It  thus  appeared  to  one  to  offer 
too  little,  to  another  to  yield  too  much ;  but  this  must  be  said  in  its 
honour,  that  it  only  rejected  that  which  it  conceived  could  nowhere  be 
learned  from  the  Gospel  of  the  Bible.  It  continued,  not  merely  in  its 
time  of  success,  but  even  in  after  times,  unchangeably  firm  in  its 
historico-supranatural  conception  of  the  Gospel.  And  so  little  does  it 
deserve  the  reproach  of  having  been  the  forerunner  of  the  modern 
Naturalism,  that,  on  the  contrary,  it  exhibits  against  it  a  developed  and 
strongly  apologetic  character.  The  schools  of  Utrecht  and  Leyden, 
as  well  as  that  of  Groningen,  published  each  its  dogmatic  handbook  ;  the 
first  in  the  Compendium  Theol.  Chr.  Dogm.,  1853,  of  H.  E.  Vinke  (t  1862), 
a  pupil  of  Heringa,  as  well  as  of  Van  Heusde,  a  biblical,  pacific,  and 
practical  theologian,  par  excellence;  the  other  in  the  "  Initia  Dogmatices 
Christiana"  of  J.  H.  Scholten  (i  ed,  1854).  Moreover,  already  in 
1848  had  the  last-named  theologian  appeared  with  a  work  of  much  greater 
importance,  "  De  leer  der  Hervormde  kerk  in  hare  grondbeginselen  nit  de 
bronnen  voorgesteld  en  beoordeeld"  (ii.  vols.,  4  ed.,  1861),  which  he  after- 
wards partly  supplemented  in  a  monograph  over  "  De  vrije  Wil"  (1858). 
Seldom  has  the  habent  sua  fata  libelli  been  so  fulfilled  in  any  essay  as 
in  this ;  and  it  is  perhaps  not  yet  the  time  to  point  out  its  peculiar  place  in 
the  history  of  science;  its  objective  denotation  may  be  sufficient  here. 
While  the  Groningen  school  had  shown  a  manifest  inclination  to  Evan- 
gelical Catholicism,  that  of  Leyden,  on  the  contrary,  sought  to  bring  again 
into  honour  the  Refonned  Confession,  after  it  had  been  purified  and 
developed.  According  to  the  writer's  own  testimony,  his  book  was  "a 


REVIVAL.  55 

criterion  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  according  to  its  own  principles, 
which,  without  an  absolute  declaration  of  hostility,  contained  an  attack 
upon  existing  theology  in  all  its  systems."  Making  a  sharp  distinction 
between  principle  and  dogma,  he  represented  this  latter  in  a  light  which 
seemed  to  many  utterly  irreconcilable  with  the  subject-matter  and 
essence  of  their  Evangelical  and  Ecclesiastical  Confession.  Hence  it 
came  to  pass  that  he  of  necessity  met  with  much  resistance,  even  from 
the  Theologians  of  other  Churches.  He  himself,  however,  stood  as  little 
unmovable  as  the  stream  of  time.  He  gradually  drew  nearer  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Empiric  school,  until  at  last  he  openly  declared  war  with  all 
Supranaturalism  (1867).  That  it  was  not  impossible,  while  treating 
Dogmatics  in  a  scientific  spirit,  to  arrive  at  different  results,  was  meanwhile 
shown  by  the  "Bijdragen  tot  de  vcrklarin^,  toetsing  en  ontwikkeling  van  de 
leer  der  Herv.  Kerk''  of  J.  J.  van  Toorenenbergen  (1865). — The  "  In/eiding" 
and  "  Schefs"  published  by  F.  J.  Domela  Nieuwenhuis  (11869),  gives 
evidence  of  the  manner  in  which  Dogmatics  was  studied  in  the  Lutheran 
Church.  The  Dogmatics  of  the  Teleio-Baptists  were  brought  to  light  again 
in  the  " Beginselen  en  leer  der  oude  Doopsgezinden"  by  S.  Hoekstra  Bz. 
(1863),  who  also  came  out  as  an  independent  student  of  Dogmatics,  from 
an  indeterministic  standpoint,  in  the  spirit  of  Modernism,  but  on  idealistic 
principles,  as  we  see  in  his  Bronnen  en  Grondslagen  van  het  Godsdgeloof 
(1864).  It  is  plain,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  that  the  empirical  ten- 
dency of  philosophic  investigation  must  in  many  respects  operate  with 
injurious  effect  on  the  study  of  Dogmatics.  The  dogma,  that  there 
certainly  neither  can  nor  ought  to  be  any  more  Dogmatics,  has  become  an 
axiom  with  many  ;  yet  not  without  men  being  even  in  this  way  compelled 
to  admit  a  minimum  of  absolutely  indispensable  dogmas.  A.  Pierson,  in 
his  Bcspiegeling,  Gezag,  en  Ervaring  (1855),  has  expressed  what  finally  must 
remain  as  dogmatic  principle  and  result  according  to  this  method  ;  after 
Opzoomer  had  earlier  given  a  sketch  of  Dogmatics,  in  the  Kunsten  Letteib. 
(1854,  p.  295).  The  rupture  of  Empiricism  with  Church  and  Theology 
has,  besides,  after  manifold  misunderstandings,  been  so  clearly  manifested 
that  the  illusion  of  the  modern  school  is  confessed  and  lamented  by  almost 
everybody.  Among  others  the  Ethical  school  entered  the  lists  against  its 
naturalistic  principles,  specially  by  the  mouth  of  its  talented  leader,  D. 
Chantepie  de  la  Saussaye.  While  it  conceived  of  Dogmatics  as  "  the 
description  of  the  Christian  life  of  the  community  which  is  necessarily 
one  with  the  highest  truth,"  it  was  most  specially  guided  by  its  striving 
"  to  transfer  Christianity  from  the  purely  religious  into  the  moral  sphere, 
or  rather,  to  bring  into  prominence  the  moral  side  of  the  supranatural 
doctrine,  and  thus  to  make  the  doctrine  become  truth  and  life."  Thus  it 
attempted,  though  not  in  a  manner  clear  enough  to  be  well  understood  by 
all,  to  become  for  the  Church  and  Theology  of  the  Netherlands,  what 
Vinet  was  for  that  of  France  and  Switzerland. 

Whilst  the  Ethical  school  does  not  without  much  hesitation  accept  the 
qualification  of  being  supranaturalistic,  the  modern  Supranaturalism  on 
the  other  hand  comes  boldly  forward,  with  the  assurance  that  by  the  firm 
maintenance  and  application  of  its  principles  the  salvation  for  Church  and 
Science  may  be  expected.  From  this  standpoint,  which  is  also  that 


56  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

occupied  by  the  writer  of  this  book,  Christianity  is  conceived  as  the  fount 
of  a  supranatural  revelation ;  Dogmatics  consequently  as  the  Doctrine  of 
Salvation  (not  to  be  confounded  with  Ethics,  as  the  Doctrine  of  Life), 
while  the  historical  character  of  the  Christian  Religion  is  emphatically  urged. 
This  school  calls  itself  Supranaturalistic,  because  it  starts  from  the  belief 
in  a  God,  who  is  Lord  over  His  own  creation,  and  has  revealed  Himself  in 
Jesus  Christ  in  a  mode  which  cannot  possibly  be  explained  as  the  merely 
natural  result  of  merely  material  causes :  and  Modern  Supranaturalistic, 
because  it  will  not  continue  to  stand  immovably  by  the  old,  but  strives  to 
advance,  in  such  wise  that  it  (as  distinguished  from  an  earlier  Supra- 
naturalism)  does  not  start  from  a  deistic,  but  from  a  theistic  conception  of 
God ;  and  places,  not  the  doctrine,  but  the  person  of  the  Lord  in  the  fore- 
ground, and  wishes  to  do  full  justice  to  the  ethical  as  well  as  the 
metaphysical  and  historical-  character  of  revealed  truth.  It  wishes  to  be 
the  science  of  belief,  but  specially  one  derived  from  God's  revelation  in 
Christ,  as  this  is  made  known  to  us  in  the  Gospel,  and  is  confessed  by  the 
light  of  spiritual  experience.  It  displays,  while  historico-philosophic  in  its 
nature,  at  the  same  time  an  apologetical  and  irenic  character.  With  its 
roots  in  the  past,  it  struggles  with  the  present,  and  has  its  eye  specially 
directed  to  the  future.  Whether  it  has  itself  a  future  in  store,  and  what 
that  future  is  to  be,  time  alone  can  show. 

Compare  specially,  in  addition  to  the  before-named  writings  of  Gasz  and  Dorner, 
A.  MUECKE,  Die  Dogm.  des  19.  Jahrh.  (1867)  ;  C.  SCHWARTZ,  Zur  Gesch.  der  Neuesten 
Theol.  (i  ed.),  1856;  PHIL.  SCHAFF,  Germany,  its  Universities,  etc.  (1858.) — As 
regards  more  special  views,  on  Schleiermacher,  Vinet,  and  other  distinguished  theo- 
logians, the  articles  in  Herzog,  R.E.,  and  the  literature  quoted  in  them,  as  well  as 
J.  J.  VAN  OOSTERZEE,  Essays  on  the  Glaubenslekre  von  Strauss,  in  the  Godgel.  Bijdr. 
1842,  1843  ;  on  that  of  Schweitzer,  in  the  Jahrbb.  of  1848  ;  on  De  Wette  and  Scholten, 
in  those  of  1850  ;  and  on  Martensen,  in  those  of  1851. — On  the  Groningen  school,  P. 
HOFSTEDE  DE  GROOT,  De  Gr.  Godgcleerdeninhunneeigenaardigheid,  1855.  OntheLeyden 
school,  the  discussions  of  D.  Chantepie  de  la  Saussaye,  Gorter,  Douwes,  and  others. 
On  Ethical  Theology,  J.  F.  ASTIE,  Les  deux  Theologies  nouvelles  (1862),  and  the  prin- 
cipal writings  of  La  Saussaye.  On  the  aim  and  efforts  of  the  Modern  Supranaturalism, 
J.  J.  VAN  OOSTERZEE,  Oratio  de  Scepticismo,  etc.  (1863).  J.  J.  Doedes  has  furnished  an 
important  contribution  to  popular  Dogmatics  from  this  standpoint  in  De  leer  der  Zaligheid 
enz.  (1870),  while  J.  H.  Gunning,  jun.,  has  very  cleverly  done  the  same,  from  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Ethical  school,  in  his  Blikken  in  de  Ofeitbaring  (1866,  sqq.). 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Closer  defining  and  criticism  of  Schleiermacher  and  his  school. — Orthodoxy  and 
Speculative  Philosophy  in  apparent  peace  and  increasing  conflict. — The  standpoint  of 
the  Eclectic  and  the  Mediary  Theologians. — The  latest  labours  of  Ecclesiastical 
Dogmatics.— The  peculiarity  exhibited  by  the  Theology  of  the  present  time. — Modernism 
and  Christian  Dogmatics. — The  tendency  and  influence  of  Vinet. — Lights  and  shadows 
of  the  Groningen  school. — The  Ethical  Theology  of  the  Netherlands. — Influence  exer- 
cised by  foreign  Dogmatics  on  the  Dogmatics  of  the  Netherlands. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

CLAIMS  OF  DOGMATICS. 


SECTION   XVI. — THE   STARTING-POINT. 

WHILE  the  history  of  Dogmatics  attests  the  necessity  of  further 
investigation,  that  investigation  itself  wholly  depends  on  its  start- 
ing-point. No  starting-point  can,  however,  be  the  true  one,  which 
directly  conflicts  with  the  character  and  design  of  the  science. 
Neither  an  unbridled  Scepticism  nor  an  inflexible  Dogmatism  offers 
it  a  trustworthy  point  of  departure,  but  only  the  personal  Christian 
belief  in  revelation,  founded  on  Scripture  and  experience,  and 
protected  against  every  attack  by  a  vigorous  Apologetics.  The 
determination  of  this  principle  defines  at  the  same  time  the  relation 
of  Dogmatics  to  other  non-theological  sciences,  and  by  that 
means  marks  off  the  boundaries  of  its  own  territory. 

1.  We  reach  the  end  of  our  historical  researches  with  the  conviction 
that  Dogmatics  has  not  yet  by  any  means  spoken  its  last  utterance.     But 
then  comes  the  question,  in  what  direction  must  it  further  move  forth  ?  Every- 
thing  depends   now  upon   our  starting-point.      The  A6j  not  vov  <rrG>  thus 
becomes   for  us  a  question  of  the  utmost   importance.     All  research  is 
guided  by  its  premisses,  and  the  stateliest   building,  if  founded  upon  the 
sand,  sinks  into  ruin. 

2.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  call  to  mind  that  the   starting-point  of  any 
scientific  investigation  must  not  conflict  with  the   nature  of  the  science 
itself.     He  who  considers  all  philosophy  as  a  chimera  can  hardly  study  its 
history  with  a  satisfactory  result ;  he  who  thinks  that  there  are  no  laws  of 
beauty,  cannot  possibly  compose  a  treatise  on  ^Esthetics.     And  yet  in  the 
study  of  Christian  Dogmatics  this  rule  is  so  often  forgotten,    that  it  is 
imperatively  necessary,  when  its  claims  are  discussed,  never  to  lose  sight 
of  what  has  been  said  in  Chapter  I.  concerning  its  character. 


jg  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

3.  If  Dogmatics  is  a  science  of  faith   (§  3),  then  can  its  starting  not 
possibly  be  placed  in  an  unbridled  Scepticism.     The  dogmatist,  as  such, 
may  and  must  have  doubts  concerning  many  things,— specially  concerning 
the  infallibility  of  himself,  and  others  along  with  him,— and  he  who  doubts 
honestly,  and  is  seeking  with  diligence,  may  hope  to  attain  to  certainty ; 
but  the  systematic  doubt,  whether  it  be  of  the  existence,  or  of  the  possibility 
of  knowing  unseen  and  eternal  things,  can  never  be  the  point  de  depart, 
properly  so  called,  of  dogmatic  investigation.     Who  will  ever  raise  himself 
to  the  heights  of  spiritual  contemplation  when  he  has  doubts  either  of  the 
reality  of  the  highest  sphere  or  in  the  power  of  his  own   wings  ?     No, 
"  Dogmatics  does  not  take  its  starting-point  in  doubt,  which  is  often  pro- 
pounded as  the  requirement  for  philosophy.     It  is  not  developed  from  the 
emptiness  of  doubt,   but   from   the  fulness  of  belief.     A  consciousness 
starved   by  doubt  has  never  yet   been   able  to  produce  a  Dogmatics." 
(Martensen.) 

4.  As  little  profit,  on  the  other  hand,  can  be  expected  from  an  inflexible 
Dogmatism,  which  clings  spasmodically  to  that  which  has  been  handed 
down,  and  sets  on  one  side  the  distinction  between  subjective  conviction 
and  objective  truth.     Such  a  Dogmatism  as  that  which  guided  the  Scholas- 
ticism of  the  middle  ages  and  of  the  seventeenth  century,  renders  renewed 
dogmatic  investigation  partly  impossible  and  partly  superfluous.    -In  the 
form  in  which  it  is  seen  here  and  there  in  our  own  days,  and  scents  the 
taint   of  heresy  wherever   the   mere   word    "  purification   of  doctrine"  is 
uttered,  it   takes   the   part   of  confessional   orthodoxy,    but  forsakes  the 
Protestant  character  of  science.     When  the  only  permissible  reply  on  every 
point  is  fixed   beforehand,  the  renewed   question,    "  what  is  truth  ? "  is 
deprived  of  all  further  serious  meaning. 

5.  It  is  only  from  the  force,  constantly  renewing  itself,  of  personal  faith  and 
life  that  Dogmatics  can  develop  in  ever  new  forms.     Where  that  principle 
is  wanting,  the  ground  for  its  study  not  only  fails,  but  even  the  first  element 
of  the  possibility  of  obtaining  a  successful  result  is  missing.      "  They  who 
are  void  of  faith  either  interchange  their  varying  conviction   with  historic 
faith,  and  unconsciously  present  their  personal  views,  while  they  think  they 
are   giving  a  scientific   expression   to   Christian   doctrine,   or    they    are 
thoroughly  conscious  themselves  of  this  distinction,  and  their  interest  in 
the  Christian  Religion  is  thus  merely  historical."     (J.  Muller.) 

6.  The  personal  Christian  belief  in  revelation,  which  we  claim  as  the 
starting-point  for  Dogmatics,  is  by  no  means  an  unconditional  assent  of 
the  reason,  which  has  accepted  the  whole  mass  of  Church  doctrine  at  once, 
without  understanding  it ;  but  a  trust  of  the  heart,  as  well  in  the  existence 
and  recognisability  of  an  eternal  truth,  as  in  Him,  in  and  through  whom  it 
has  been  made  known  by  revelation.      It  recognises  in  that  which  with 
the  greatest  plainness  and  force  is  expressed  as  the  immediate  utterance  of 
human  consciousness,  a  fundamental  truth,  and  builds  upon  it  with  caution. 
As  such  a  fundamental  truth  it  reckons,  too,  that  which  is  the  basis  of  all 
Religion  and  its  philosophy ;  the  existence,  namely,  of  a  higher  world,  a 
kingdom  of  light  and  of  life,  for  which  the  heart  yearns  with  its  deepest 
aspirations.     He  who  likens  such  a  representation  to  a  childish  belief  in 
spectres,  may  perhaps  be  rescued  by  more  thorough  psychological  study, 


THE  STARTING-POINT.  59 

but  is  meanwhile  thoroughly  unfitted  for  the  study  of  Dogmatics,  since  he 
denies  \\s  primum  verum. 

7.  In  a  still  more  definite  sense  must  the  personal  life  of  the  believer  be 
the  starting-point  of  Dogmatic  investigation,  and  the  credo  ut   intdligam 
has  a  deep  significance.     In  the  Christian  domain  the  highest  knowledge 
is  born  of  spiritual  life,  as  it,  on  its   part  again,  must  lead  to  real  life. 
"  He  who  loveth  not  hath  not  known  God."3     Without  internal  sympathy, 
real  intelligence,  especially  in  this   domain  of  thought,  is  inconceivable  ; 
because  the  sphere  of  thought  is  that  of  life  also.     "  Che  ben  ama,  ben  sa" 
(A.  Conti).      Of  course   this   belief,    on  which   we  ground  our  inquiries, 
ought  thoroughly  to  justify  itself;  but  with  the  well-founded  confidence  that 
it  will  be  able  to  do  so,  the  undeniable  right  of  the  starting-point  we  men- 
tioned may  be  most  earnestly  insisted  on.     Yes,  the  depth  and  clearness 
of  knowledge  will  always  rise  or  fall  with  that  of  the  life  of  faith.     "  Just 
because  Christian  science  is  not  merely  a  knowledge  about  Religion,  but 
religious  science;   not  merely  a  science  of  belief,  but  a  believing  science; 
just  for  that  very  reason  faith  and  knowledge  iiake  up  an  organic  unity, 
that  is,  science  springs  living  from  faith,  as  a  confession,  partial  indeed 
and  relative,  but  still  always  advancing."     (Martensen.) 

8.  Dogmatics,  starting  on  this  principle,  has  no  hostile  relation  to  any 
other  science,  but  remains  free  in  its  relation  to  all  sciences.     As  for 
Natural  Science,  neither  this  nor  the  Science  of  Faith  has  yet  spoken  its 
last  word,  and  the  latter  would  not  deserve  its  name  if  it  had  not  learned 
to  wait.    There  may  be  momentary  contradiction  between  a  certain  special 
tendency  of  the  two  ;  but  Nature  and  Revelation  cannot  possibly  contradict 
one  another, — nor  do.  they  do  so.     Where  contradiction  appears,  the  fault 
must  lie  hidden,  either  in    the  reasoning  or   in    the  observation.      The 
Bible  is  not  a  handbook  of  Natural  Science,  and  Natural  Science  has  no 
answer  for  the  questions  to  which  the  Bible  replies ;  of  both  the  "  suum 
cuique"  is  true. — As  for  Philosophy — if  that  word  is  used  in  a  subjective 
sense  (sapienticz  amor) — then  it  is  easily  shown  that  it  can*  proffer  the  most 
useful  service  for  the  exposition  and  maintenance  of  the  doctrine  of  Faith, 
so  that  the  true  philosopher  will  also  be  the  best  dogmatist.     If,  on  the 
other  hand,  we  speak  of  Philosophy  in  an   objective  sense  to  denote  a 
definite  speculative  philosophic  system,  then  the  relation  between  it  and 
Dogmatics  will  naturally  depend  upon   the  peculiarity  of  the  philosophic 
principles.     A  naturalistic  or  pantheistic  philosophy  cannot  possibly  proffer 
to  Dogmatics  aught  but  a  Judas  kiss ;  while  the  contrary  maybe  easily  true 
of  a  theistic  or  spiritualistic  school  of  philosophy.     No  theologian  will  look 
upon  the  results  of  thoroughly  scientific  thought  with  disdain,  and  a  theo- 
logian of  the  Reformed  Church  especially  will  never  for  a  moment  hesitate 
to  repeat  the  words  of  Calvin,  "  Philosophia  praeclarum   est  Dei  donum, 
et  qui  omnibus  saeculis  exstiterunt  viri  docti,  eos  Deus  ipse  excitavit  ut  ad 
veri  notitiam  mundo  prselucerent "    (Ep.  ad.  Bucerum.  Opp.  Tom.  ix.  Epp., 
p.  50).     But  no  more  will  he  in  the  dogmatic  contest  grant  the  highest 
judgment  to  the  allied  science,  because  he  has  to  do  with  an  historical 
revelation,  which  the  philosopher  might  consider  a  posteriori,  but  could 

3  I  John  iv.  8. 


60  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

never  think  out  a  priori.*'  True  philosophy  and  true  theology  will  rever- 
ence and  love  one  another,  but  will  still  pursue  each  its  own  path.  A 
negative  reply  only  can  be  given  to  the  question  whether  anything  can  be 
philosophically  true  and  theologically  false,  or  vice  versa.  Dogmatics 
does  not  in  principle  stand  in  any  constrained  relation  even  to  the  empi- 
rical philosophy,  if  it  does  not  at  least  ground  its  arguments  merely  on 
external  observation.  For  Dogmatics  certainly  takes  counsel  with  spiritual 
experience,  and,  not  less  than  the  other,  considers  itself  called  to  observa- 
tion and  combination.6  The  hostility  commences  only  when  the  empiricist 
applies  his  own  experience  and  that  of  others  as  the  supreme  test  in  the 
judgment  on  the  well-proved  facts  of  revelation,  and,  passing  over  from  the 
empirical  to  the  speculative  region,  utters  with  a  bold  voice  the  word 
impossible  !  in  other  words,  decides  arbitrarily  what  may  or  may  not  be 
historically  trustworthy.  The  true  philosopher  of  experience  will  gladly 
confess  "  the  further  progress  we  make  in  experience,  the  nearer  we  come 
to  the  inscrutable  "  (Gothe),  that  is,  to  the  domain  of  Faith. 

9.  The  starting-point  thus  fixed  marks  out  at  the  same  time  the  boun- 
daries of  the  dogmatic  territory.  That  only,  but  all  that,  does  thus  belong 
to  it,  which  is  the  expression  of  Christian  belief  in  revelation,  or  at  any 
rate  is  in  direct  connexion  with  it.  Belief  in  revelation  postulates  a  mutual 
relation  between  God  and  man  ;  questions,  therefore,  which  have  not  the 
slightest  value  for  the  knowledge  of  this  revelation  belong  to  some  other 
domain  rather  than  to  ours.  The  application  of  this  simple  but  far-reaching 
principle  to  the  many  subtleties  of  the  earlier  and  later  Scholasticism  is 
very  easily  made,  but  is  not  unnecessary  even  in  these  days. 

Comp.  KI.ING,  Ueber  Gestaltitng  der  Christl.  Dogm.  in  the  Tubing.  Zeitschrift  fiir  Theol. 
(1834),  iv.;  H.  MARTENSEN,  Ueber  Glauben  und  Wissen,  in  \hzjahrb.fiir  Deutsche  Theol. 
(1869),  xiv.,  pp.  399,  sqq.;  O.  MARPURG,  Das  IVissen  und  der  religiose  Glaubc  (1869), 
pp.  254,  sqq. ;  TH.  ZOLLMANN,  Bibel  uiid  Natur  in  der  Harmonic  ihrer  Offenh.  (a  prize 
Essay),  2  ed.  (1869)  ;  A.  STUELER,  Schriftl hre  und  Na'uriuissenschaft :  n,im  For- 
lesungfn  (1869)  ;  H.  E,  VlNKE,  Oratio  de  Germano  Philosopho,  Optimo  Theologo  (1836), 
De  Empirie  van  Jesus' Apostelen  enverdere  Tijdgenooten  (1860);  ANASTASIO,  Christendom  en 
Empirisme,  bl.  45,  sqq.  (1862) ;  THE  BISHOP  OF  PETERBOROUGH,  Scepticism  (Dutch 
Tr.,  with  Preface  By  J.  J.  van  Oosterzee,  1863). 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Connexion  between  this  and  the  preceding  chapter. — Necessity  and  requirements  of  an 
acceptable  starting-point.— Is  any  benefit  still  to  be  expected  from  Scepticism,  or  from 
Dogmatism  being  taken  as  our  starting-point  ?— Meaning  and  basis  of  the  demand  of  belief 
as  the  first  condition  of  all  dogmatic  knowledge. — The  origin  of  the  constantly  recurrin^ 
conflicts  between  Dogmatics  and  Natural  Philosophy.— How  can  this  be  best  directed  ?— 
The  value  of  a  sound  philosophy  acknowledged  in  every  age  by  the  most  distinguished 
and  orthodox  theologians. — What  must  Dogmatics,  according  to  our  proposed  principles 
accept  in  its  investigation  ?— What  may  it  safely  put  on  one  side? 

4 1  Cor.  ii.  9.  *  joluj  L  ,4  .  iv<  ^ 


ITS   METHOD.  6l 


SECTION   XVII. — ITS   METHOD. 

We  must  have  not  only  our  starting-point,  but  our  method  of 
investigation  too,  in  agreement  with  the  nature  and  object  of  the 
science.  Each  dogma  ought  to  be  derived  naturally,  and  according 
to  its  essence,  from  its  chief  source,  be  critically  examined  and 
united  with  others  by  an  analytical-synthetical  method,  so  that 
each  of  its  parts  derives  its  light  and  right,  its  importance  and 
value,  from  its  coherence  with  this  organic  whole.  On  this  account 
we  can  only  speak  of  the  so-called  dogmatic  proof,  where  a  common 
principle  of  fundamental  estimation,  at  least  to  a  certain  degree, 
exists.  The  character  of  this  proof  is  determined  by  the  nature  of 
the  particular  propositions,  yet  its  end  is  gained  when  it  has  been 
made  evident  that  belief  is  reasonable,  unbelief  unreasonable.  The 
highest  evidence  for  the  truth  of  any  dogmatic  proposition  is  given 
in  its  agreement  at  the  same  time  with  the  utterance  of  God's  word 
in  Holy  Scripture,  and  with  the  testimony  of  spiritual  experience. 

1.  Though  the  question  as  to  the  method  of  an  investigation  may  seem 
less  attractive,  it  is,  nevertheless,  absolutely  necessary,  as  opposed  on  the 
one  hand  to  an  indefiniteness,  and  on  the  other  to  the  conflict,  specially 
seen  in  our  days.     The  old  proverb,  never  entirely  true,  "  methodus  est 
arbitraria,"  deserves  more  than  ever  to  be  followed  by  the  maxim,  "  metho- 
dus est  necessaria." "  The  very  fact  of  the  most  diverse  methods  having 
been  pursued  in  different  ages,  proves  the  importance  of  our  problem,  and 
advises  caution.     Dogmatics,  too,  ought  to  distinguish  itself  by  the  scien- 
tific accuracy  of  its  method  from  the  more  popular  forms  (e.g.  Catechism  or 
Confession)  in  which  the  consciousness  of  belief  expresses  itself. 

2.  Since  the  method  of  each  science  must  be  in  accord  with  its  charac- 
ter, neither  the  purely  empirical  nor  the  absolutely  speculative  method  can 
here  be  called  the   only  available  one,  though  both,  when  properly  em- 
ployed, proffer  most  important  service  to  Dogmatics.    For  it  is  a  science  of 
faith  in  a  special  revelation,  which,  while  partly  within  the  reach  of  spiritual 
experience,  exhibits  at  the  same  time  an  historical  and  metaphysical  charac- 
ter.    He  who  will  choose  no  other  way  than  that  of  daily  experience,  or  of 
abstract  reasoning,  and  then  consistently  persists  in  that  way,  can  only  dis- 
trust and  reject  that  which  is  the  very  essence  of  Christianity.     Experience 
itself  forbids  us  to  choose  here  exclusively  the  Empiric  method  as  our 
guide,  and  sound  reasoning  makes  us  feel  in  this  sphere  the  insufficiency  of 
our  reason.     We  can  scarcely  expect  that  a  holy  Theology  will  bi^d  itself 
to  a  rule  which  in  principle  neglects  all  distinction  between  sacred  and 


62  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

profane,  and  leads  but  too  early  to  a  denial  of  its  object  and  of  its  entire 
character.  It  is  not  by  mere  external  perception,  but  by  spiritual  intuition 
and  sanctified  reflection  on  that  which  the  eye  of  faith  has  contemplated, 
that  we  arrive  in  this  domain  at  knowledge  worthy  of  the  name. 

3.  In   Christian  Dogmatics,  a  biblical,   an  historical,  and  a  scientific 
element  are  most  closely  united.      The  first  naturally  conies  first  in  order ; 
the  question  of  questions  is,  "  What  does  God's  word  teach  us  in  Holy 
Scripture?"      " Non  nisi  Dei  lumine  potest  Deus  cognosci  et  coli  ad  salu- 
tem,  prouti  nee  sol  a  nobis  videri  aut  possideri  potest  nisi  per  proprium 
ipsius    lumen"    (Maresius).       Nothing  may  be  accepted  as  a  part  of  a 
Christian  doctrine  which  cannot  be  proved  to  rest  really,  whether  KO.T& 
ri>  faTov,  or  at  least  Kara  T,>  didvoiav,  upon  the  word  of  revelation.     Hence 
it  is  plain  that  the  so-called  loca  probantia  must  not  only  be  counted, 
but  weighed;    so   that  we   do   not   prove   the    doctrine   of  the   Trinity 
from  i  John  v.  7,  or  that  of  Predestination  from  Acts  xv.  18.     Only  when 
Biblical  Theology,  and  that  specially  of  the  New  Testament,  has  been  duly 
investigated,  and  its  well-understood  authority  has  been  maintained,  does 
the  Dogmatics  of  the  Church  begin  to  speak.     It  must  not  be  derived  from 
any  but  indisputable  sources,  must  be  developed  and  proposed  according 
to  its  own  principles,  and  must  be  tested  by  the  word  and  Spirit  of  Christ 
as  the  supreme  Judge.     The  philosophical  criticism  which  the  dogmatist 
mast  apply  to  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  and  of  the  Church,  is  by  no  means 
that  of  the  merely  natural  understanding,  but  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who 
lives  in  every  believer,  and   first  guides  to  a  right  judgment  in  spiritual 
things.      "  Spiritualis   homo    KpiTiK&raroi'  (Bengel).      We  must,    however, 
remember  always  that  in  the  last  instance  the  word  of  Christ  is  to  be  the 
test  of,  and  not  to  be  tested  by,  the  Christian  consciousness.     What  we  do 
not  see  given,  at  least  in  principle,  as  the  word  and  spirit  of  Christ,  or  as 
necessarily  following  from  it,  as  the  oak  from  the  acorn,  has  no  further  claim 
to  existence  in  the  Christian  dogmatic  sphere. 

4.  If,  then,  in  dogma,  too,  we  first  obtain  one  whole  by  uniting  the  several 
parts,  on  the  other  hand  each  part  can  only  be  properly  known  and  valued 
by  the  light  of  the  whole.    We  cannot  too  plainly  state,  in  opposition  to  the* 
atomic  criticism  which  neglects  the  tree  for  particular  branches  of  which  it 
consists,  and  the  whole  body  for  its  several  limbs,  that  the  cardinal  point 
here  is  not  to  divide,  but  to  unite.    Dogmatic  proportions  are  like  the  cross- 
beams of  a  roof,  of  which  the  separate  balks  could  easily  be  loosened,  but 
which,  when  all  are  joined  together,  mutually  support  one  another,  and  as 
one  vast  structure  defy  the   winds.      He  who   attains  to  the  mountain 
summit,  and  from  it  surveys  with   piercing  eye  the  whole  landscape,  will 
best  see  and  take  in  each  part  of  that  landscape.     "  Dogmatic  conception 
is  first  of  all  an  explicative  conception,  a  development  of  that  which  the 
contemplation  has  already   given,   a  development  of  that  which  belongs  to 
the  inner  connection  of  all  the  essential  parts  of  the  subject "  (Martensen). 
Many  a  truth  or  fact,  in   itself  strange  or  offensive,  has  a  very  different 
character  when  it  is  considered  as  part  of  a  well-constructed  whole.     [Com- 
pare, e.g.  many  prophetic  miracles  of  the  Old  Testament  which  are  apparently 
so  inconsistent  until  they  are  placed  in  the  light  of  the  Theocracy  as  a  whole.] 
It  is  therefore  of  the  utmost  importance  that,  in  the  spiritual  study  of 


ITS  METHOD.  63 

Dogmatics,  analysis  should  never  be  preferred  at  the  expense  of  synthesis, 
or  vice  versa, 

5.  From  what  has  been  said,  we  are  naturally  led  to  the  question  as  to 
the   requirements    of    the    so-called    dogmatic    proof    in    so   far  as   we 
can  speak  of   such  a  thing.      From  the  nature   of  the   case   this   must 
be  the  indicating  of  reasons,  sufficient  for  ourselves,  on  which  belief  in  the 
truth  of  dogmatic  propositions  rests.      It  offers,  in  other  words,  an  account 
of  the  reasons  for  the  conviction  of  faith,  and  this  account  can  only  then  be 
given   with   success   when   this   proposition   is   never   forgotten ;    Contra 
prindpia   negantem   ndn   valet  disputatio.      Who  will  succeed   in   proving 
the  possibility  of  miracles  to  the  man  who  starts  with  a  pantheistic  concep- 
tion of  God  ;    or  the  necessity  of  reconciliation  to  him  who  hesitates  to 
recognise  sin  as  guilt  and  ruin  ?     At  the  same  time,  the  method  of  this 
proof  must  always  vary  according  to  the  nature  of  the  dogmatic;  proposi- 
tions.    Where  these  exhibit  an  historic  character,  it  will  specially  call  for 
an  accurate  examination  of  testimony ;    where  this  character,  on  the  con- 
trary, is  metaphysical  or  ethical,  preference  must  be  given  to  the  speculative 
and  psychological  method.      Then  we  ought  gradually  to  ascend  as  far  as 
possible,  without  too  great  a  step,  from  that  which  is  known  and  agreed,  to 
that  which  is  still  unknown  and  doubtful,  and  aspire  to  win  the  testimony 
once  borne  by  a  philosopher  to  another  thinker :  "  What  I  understand  of  his 
doctrine  is  so  excellent,  that  I  can  no  longer  doubt  of  the  excellency  of 
that  which  I  do  not  understand." — In  any  case,  in  dogmatic  demonstration, 
we  may  be  considered  to  have  reached  our  end  where  the  acceptability  of  the 
standpoint  and  the  expression  of  belief  is  so  maintained  as  to  convince  him 
who  is,  as  far  as  possible,  impartial  and  qualified  to  judge,  though  the  oppo- 
nent himself  will  not  yet  acknowledge  that  he  is  defeated.    Internal  convic- 
tion, indeed,  depends  not  only  on  intellectual,  but  also  on  moral  conditions ; 
and  faith  is  not  a  necessary  result  of  mere  logical  demonstration,  but  the 
ripe  fruit  of  a  psychological  condition  of  life.     Dogmatic  proof  has  thus  not 
to  show  that  nothing  at  all  can  be  adduced  in  opposition  to  a  proposi- 
tion, but  that  we  are  bound  notwithstanding  to   accept   it,   because  the 
truth  is  too  powerful,  even  against  not  unimportant  contradiction.     In  a 
word,  it  will  arouse  a  confident  assent,  which  may  be  invited,  but  never  can 
be  imposed. 

6.  As  dogmatic  testimony  has  various  requirements,  so  the  dogmatic; 
evidence  which  is  founded  on  it  has  various  degrees,  and  moreover  is  at  all 
times  confined  within  its  own  limits.     As  to  the  first,  the  mere  fact  that 
something  is  found  in  the  Bible  can  hardly,  without  anything  more,  be  pro- 
duced as  a  sufficient  proof.     We  get  to  much  firmer  ground  as  soon  as  it  is 
seen  that  the  proposition  in  question  necessarily  follows  from  all  that  on  good 
evidence  we  know  of  God  and  His  revelation.     What  Christ,  the  King  of 
truth,  by  word  and  deed  announces  as  truth,  has,  when  suitably  elucidated 
and  tested,  already  decisive  authority  for  all  His  true  disciples.  The  Protes- 
tant can,  therefore,  in  a  thoroughly  proper  manner,  testify  with  Erasmus, 
"  Non  parum  me  movet  Ecclesiae  auctoritas."     That  which  not  merely  the 
individual  but  the  collective  Christian  consciousness   throughout   all   ages 
expresses  concerning  saving  truth,  throws  no  small  weight  into  the  trembling 
scale  of  investigation.      \Vhen  the  utterance  of  God's  word  in  Holy  Scrip- 


64  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

ture  accords  with  that  of  spiritual  experience,  the  highest  degree  of  dogmatic 
certainty  is  attained  which  in  this  domain  can  be  expected.  (We  add  this 
designedly  here).  Certainly,  the  most  distinguished  theologian  does  not 
produce  the  truth  ;  he  only  reproduces  it  as,  and  in  so  far  as,  it  is  revealed  and 
announced  in  the  Bible,  is  taken  up  into  his  life  of  thought,  and  up  to  a 
certain  extent  mastered.  But  still  the  science  of  belief  always  remains  devoted 
to  things  which  are  not  seen,6  and  the  empty  dream  that  their  reality  can  fall 
within  the  sphere  of  that  which  is  properly  called  demonstration,  must  inevi- 
vitably  lead  to  disappointment.  Without  any  hesitation,  we,  at  any  rate,  sub- 
scribe to  the  words  of  a  distinguished  Theologian  :  "  For  the  Christian  Theo- 
logian I  cannot  recognise  any  higher  standpoint  than  that  of  the  Apostles, 
who  held  rather  with  the  foolishness  of  God7  than  with  the  wisdom  of  men; 
and  though  there  is  no  one  who  would  not  rather  walk  by  sight  than  by  faith, 
who  would  not  rather  himself  recognise  the  truth  than  receive  it  upon  the  testi- 
mony of  authority;  although  I,  too,  consider  it  the  highest  aim  of  the  theologian 
really  to  know  the  knowable,  and  am  thankful  to  any  one  who  helps  me  on 
in  the  way,  yet  I  neither  may  nor  will  permit  myself  any  illusions  about  the 
event.  I  cannot  accept  the  will  for  the  deed,  the  promise  for  the  fulfilment. 
I  cannot,  in  things  of  the  highest  moment,  found  my  conviction  on  reasons 
by  which  no  one  would  suffer  himself  to  be  guided,  where  he  had  to  venture 
or  to  risk  something  in  matters  of  daily  life.  I  do  not,  therefore,  deny 
that  there  are  important  dogmas,  which,  notwithstanding  the  much-vaunted 
(and  in  their  way,  too,  honourable)  attempts  to  represent  them  as  true  and 
necessary  by  arguments  from  reason,  would  remain  thoroughly  problema- 
tical if  I  did  not  admit  the  word  of  Scripture  to  be  ultimately  decisive." 
(Twesten.) 

Comp.  J.  T.  BECK,  a.  a.  O.  i.,  p.  43,  sqq.  ;  REUTER,  l>  Aufgabeund  Mdhode  des 
Dogmat.  Beweises,  in  the  Zdtsch.  fiir  Deutsche  Theol.  (1851);  CH.  SECRETAN,  Recherches 
dela  melhode  qui  conduit  a  la  verite,  etc.  (1857)  ;  HOEKSTRA  Bronnen  en  Grondsl.  enz., 
pp.  41 — 44  (1864).  On  the  connection  of  Dogmatics,  Apologetics,  and  Personal 
Experience,  the  first  appendix  to  THOLUCK'S  Lehre  von  der  Siinde,  3rd  ed.  (1862)  ;  a 
treatise  of  Prof.  v.  D.  GOLTZ,  in  Basle,  Der  Weg  zum  System  in  der  Dogm.  Theol., 
published  in  the  Jahrb.  fiir  Deutsche  Theol.  (1870),  iv.,  (1871),  iv. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

The  importance  of  method  in  general,  and  specially  in  connection  with  this  subject. — 
Historical  survey  of  the  most  celebrated  dogmatic  methods. — Why  cannot  the  sciences 
of  nature  and  of  spirit  be  treated  entirely  in  the  same  method  ?— Must  we  ascend  from 
the  parts  to  the  whole,  or  from  the  whole  comprehend  the  parts  ?— Nature  and  claims 
of  dogmatic  demonstration.— Is  not  the  simple  appeal  to  Scripture  quite  sufficient  to  put 
an  end  to  all  strife  and  doubt  ?— Is  the  highest  criterion  within  or  without  us  ?— How  far 
is  a  truth  shown  to  be  such  by  the  vigour  of  life  which  proceeds  from  it  ? 

•  I  Heb.  xi.  i.  »  ,  Cor.  L  2I>  2S> 


ITS   DIVISION.  65 


SECTION   XVIII. — ITS  DIVISION. 

The  same  conditions  which  define  the  starting-point  and  method, 
apply  to  the  division,  of  Christian  Dogmatics.  If  it  is  to  be  more 
than  a  fruit  of  mere  arbitrariness,  and  to  possess  a  higher  than  a 
merely  logical  value,  then  must  it  not  be  derived  from  elsewhere, 
but  be  in  direct  accordance  with  the  central  thought  of  the  Christian 
Revelation,  place  all  the  parts  of  saving  truth  in  their  right  con- 
nexion, and  thus  be  of  service  in  the  estimation  of  the  great  whole. 
The  division  which  starts  from  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven, 
— whose  mysteries  the  Christian  Theologian  must  understand  and 
explain,  satisfies  better  than  any  other  these  requirements.  The 
Dogmatic  Theology  which  understands  its  vocation  will  be  neither 
more  nor  less  than  a  Theology  of  the  Kingdom  in  all  the  force  of 
the  word. 

1.  The  necess'ty  of  division  is  founded,  objectively,  in  the  abundance  of 
the  materials,  which  can  only  be  managed  in  this  way  ;  subjectively,  in  the 
claims  of  the  thinking  mind,  which  seeks   order  and  unity.     The  idea  of 
this  necessity  became  more  forcible  as  the  treatment  of  dogma  became 
more  scientific.     This  division,  as  far  as  the  word  can  be  used  here,  was 
originally  thoroughly  simple  ;  it  afterwards  became  more  artistic  and  intri- 
cate, whilst  specially  in  our  days  it  shows  an  even  greater  variety. 

2.  The  division  of  the  dogmatic  material  must  naturally  not  be  arbitrary, 
but  must  be  carried  out  according  to  a  fixed  principle — the  prindpium  divi- 
dendi.     A  thoroughly  good  division  requires  that  all  the  parts  of  the  whole 
be  included  in  it ;  that  each  part  has  its  own  proper  place  ;  and  that  the 
collective  parts  be  not  only  co-ordinated  by  each  other,  but  be  subordinated 
to  one  great  principal  thought,  which  they   illustrate  and  develop.     We 
may  specially  desire  that  the  basis  of  the  division  be  not  sought  elsewhere, 
but  be  derived  from  the  domain   of  the  science  itself.     Who  would  seek 
the  clue  to  the  treatment  of  some  part  of  natural  science  in  the  dcmain  of 
speculative  philosophy?     Who  will  not   divide  the  history  of  the  Church 
differently  from  the  history  of  the  world?   and  again,  who  will  not  place  the 
history  of  dogma  in  an  order  different  to   that  of  the  Church  ?    A  division 
may  be  logically  irreproachable,  and  yet  unsuited    to   its   purpose,  and 
thoroughly  faulty.     The  cause  of  many  failures  in   this  method  has  been, 
that  men  only  asked,  how  can  the  doctrine  of  faith  be  brought  in  a  sym- 
metrical scheme  to  a  well-defined  whole  ?  instead  of  considering  what  was 
the  inner  unity  and  connexion  of  the  revelation,  and  into  what  parts  that 
unity  spontaneously  divided  itself  before  the  investigating  eye. 

3.  Testing  the  various  divisions  by  these  principles,  we  quickly  discover 

F 


66  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

their  weak  points.  The  greater  portion  of  different  Loci,  arranged  and 
thoroughly  classed  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  as  has  been  done  since  the 
time  of  Melancthon,  certainly  deserves  no  higher  praise  than  that  of  prac- 
tical utility.  Even  the  simple  division  into  Theology,  Anthropology, 
Christology,  etc.,  has  little  to  recommend  it  as  specially  suitable  to  Christian 
Dogmatics.  It  is  certainly  better  when  the  distribution  is  directed  by  the 
great  antithesis  of  sin  and  grace  (Schleiermacher) ;  yet  the  benefit  is  made 
less  when,  as  in  this  case,  the  doctrine  of  sin  itself  is  not  allowed  its 
proper  rights,  and  its  true  essence  as  apostacy  and  guilt  is  disavowed. — 
Without  doubt  the  partition  is  specially  Christian,  in  which  Christ  is  made 
the  starting-point  (as  in  Holland  in  the  Groningen  school ;  in  Germany, 
though  in  a  different  method,  in  the  dogmatic  works  of  Liebner,  Lange, 
Thomasius) ;  but  this,  too,  has  its  dark  side,  since  under  its  rule  Hamartology 
cannot  possibly  have  its  proper  rights,  whilst  from  this  standpoint  injustice 
is  easily  done  to  the  rights  of  the  Old  Testament. — It  is  true  this  mistake  is 
avoided  when  (Scholten)  the  higher  unity  of  dogmatic  investigation  is  found 
in  the  idea  of  religion,  if  we  can  consecutively  treat  of  God,  or  the  object; 
of  man,  or  the  origin  of  religion,  etc. :  but  it  is  evident  that  this  scheme, 
with  some  slight  changes,  will  serve  for  any  non-Christian  doctrine,  as  well 
as  for  this.  It  is  clear,  the  guiding  principle  must  here  be  derived,  not 
from  the  universal  religious,  but  from  the  specially  Christian  domain.  We 
have  here  to  do  with  a  guidin  „'  thought,  which  can  rule  the  whole  system 
of  doctrine,  as  the  sun  rules  the  planets.  This  was  already  felt  by  Coccejus, 
when  he  tried  to  construe  the  whole  dogmatic  subject  into  the  biblical  idea 
of  a  covenant.  Even,  leaving  aside  other  considerations,  this  method  was 
more  suited  to  the  Old  Testament  than  to  the  New  :  more  Biblical  than 
Evangelical. — Much  more  was  it  certainly  in  the  spirit  of  Christianity  that  a 
theologian  of  the  Lutheran  Church  of  the  present  time  developed  the  doc- 
trine of  salvation  from  the  principle  of  love  (Schoberlein) ;  a  principle,  how- 
ever, which  is  perhaps  more  fertile  in  the  domain  of  Ethics  than  of  Dogma- 
tics ;  so  that,  for  instance,  another  (Sartorius)  was  led  to  seek  in  it  a  foundation 
for  his  "  Doctrine  of  Holy  Love."  In  the  dogmatic  domain  we  should  rather 
give  the  preference  to  the  disposition  in  which  the  baptismal  formula  is 
made  our  starting-point,  and  thus  everything  is  connected  with  the  doctrine 
of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  This,  following  in  the  foot- 
steps of  Calvin,  has  been  accepted  as  the  basis  of  their  dogmatic  edifice 
by  several  theologians  of  later  times  (Marheinecke,  Martensen,  Vinke,  and 
others),  and  is  certainly  entirely  in  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  and  His  apostles. 
In  this  method,  however,  Anthropology  as  a  whole  finds  only  a  subordinate 
and  forced  position  ;  while  as  to  the  whole  the  accuracy  of  the  remark  can- 
not be  contradicted,  "  When  the  later  dogmatists  build  their  system  with- 
out any  more  ado  upon  a  Trinitarian  presupposition,  they  act  with  a  naivete 
for  which  no  real  and  adequate  justification  can  be  found  in  the  scientific 
conditions  of  the  times"  (Schenkel).  It  is  certain  that  many  a  theologian 
of  this  century,  who  has  called  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  with  much 
emphasis  the  corner-stone  of  his  dogmatic  building,  has  in  this  word 
thought  more  of  an  immanent  movement  and  development  in  our  idea  of 
God,  than  of  a  revelation  of  the  personal  existence  and  life  of  God  con- 
sidered in  its  relation  to  humanity. 


ITS  DIVISION.  67 

4.  We  escape,  however,  all  these  difficulties  when  we  place  another 
thought  in  the  foreground,  that  of  the  kingdom  of  God  and  of  heaven. 
With  this  as  our  starting-point  we  find  ourselves  in  happy  agreement  with 
the  word  and  spirit  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  specially  of  the  New  Testament. 
In  this  direction  the  Theocracy  under  Israel  already  points,  as  well  as  the 
voice  of  the  Prophets,  and  the  whole  religious  economy.  John  the  Baptist 
came  forth  preaching  this;8  Jesus  Himself  started  from  this  point  in  His 
popular  instruction,  and  returned  to  it ;  and  even  in  the  writings  of  the 
Apostles  this  idea  everywhere  occupies  a  by  no  means  unimportant  place.9 
The  Gospel  itself  is  a  Gospel  of  the  kingdom,10  and  Christianity  a  method 
of  salvation,  not  for  the  individual  only,  but  for  the  entire  community.  We 
cannot  then  be  surprised  that  this  side  of  the  matter  was,  at  a  comparatively 
early  date,  and  in  after  times  more  expressly,  placed  in  the  foreground. 
This  in  some  measure  had  been  done  already  by  Augustine  in  his  apolo- 
getic essay,  De  dvitate  Dei,  and  even  in  the  present  century  by  one  of 
the  most  useful  apologists  in  Wurtemberg,  C.  H.  Stirm,  in  his  Apologie 
des  Christenthums,  i.  pp.  81 — 113.  Different  dogmatists  have  paid  greater 
or  less  attention  to  this  cardinal  point ;  and  yet  we  do  "not  know  of  one 
scientific  work  on  Christian  doctrine  in  which  it  serves  as  a  clue  to  the 
mode  of  treatment,  and  commune  vinculum  of  all  the  leading  parts.  As  we 
determine  on  this,  the  word  of  the  Lord  in  Matt.  xiii.  1 1,  rises  up  to  our  view, 
and  we  plage  the  great  thoughts  of  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  bright  light 
at  the  entrance  of  the  sanctuary.  That  light  breaks  of  itself  before  our  eyes 
into  a  seven-fold  ray.  We  treat  consequently  of — 

I.  God,  or  the  Sovereign  King  of  this  kingdom. — Theology. 
II.  Man,  or  the  Subject  „  Anthropology. 

III.  Christ,  or  the  Founder  „  Christology. 

IV.  Redemption,  or  the  Character      „  Objective  Soteriology. 
V.  The  way  of  salvation,  or  the 

Fundamental  Law                      „  Subjective  Soteriology. 
VI.  The  Church,  or  the  Training-School.  Ecclesiology. 
VII.  The  Coming  of  the  Lord,  or  the  Com- 
pletion of  the  kingdom  of  God.  Eschatology. 

If  the  plan  of  the  dogmatic  edifice  (its  material  parts)  is  thus  sketched, 
the  foundation  must  be  laid  in  the  so  called  formal  portion,  which  exhibits 
a  thoroughly  apologetic  character.  Then,  after  answering  a  few  preliminary 
questions,  the  foundation  of  all  dogmatic  investigation, — Religion,  Rei'elation^ 
Holy  Scripture, — must  be  treated  consecutively  and  in  the  same  order. 
And  thus  "  the  construction  of  the  entire  dogmatic  building  must  give 
proof  of  its  truth  and  value,  as  well  from  the  conception  of  the  dogma 
in  itself,  and  its  several  sides,  as  from  the  measure  of  its  exposition." 
(Lange). 


8  Matthew  iii.  2. 

9  i  Cor.  xv.  24 — 28  ;  Eph.  v.  5  ;  Heb.  x.  12,  13  ;  James  ii.  5  ;  Rev.  xii.  IO ;  xix.  16  ; 
and  many  other  places. 

10  Matt.  xxiv.  14. 

F  2 


68  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

Comp.  LANGE,  Chr.  Djgm.  i.,  §  20;  EBRARD,  Chr.  D.  i.,  §§  55,  56 ;  C.  SCHWARZ, 
Grundriss  der  Christl.  Lehre,  1 868. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Necessity  and  requirements  of  a  good  division. — Historico-critical  survey  of  the  best 

divisions. Meaning  and  tendency  of  Matt.  xiii.  n. — The  idea  of  the  Kingdom  of  God; 

its  prominent  place  in  the  Theology  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament  ;  its  import 
for  Christian  Dogmatics.— Must  not  Apologetics  rather  follow  Dogmatics,  than  precede 
the  discussion  of  this  last  ? 


SECTION   XIX. — ITS   PERFECTIBILITY. 

The  perfectibility  of  Christian  Dogmatics,  as  distinguished 
from  that  of  Revelation  itself,  is  raised  beyond  all  doubt  from  an 
Evangelical,  and  particularly  from  a  Protestant  Reformed  standpoint. 
It  is  the  natural  consequence  of  the  peculiarity  of  thoughtful  faith, 
that  it  never  thoroughly  surveys  or  conquers  its  abundant  mate- 
rials, and  the  history  of  the  science  itself  continually  evinces  this 
character  of  perfectibility.  Here,  however,  we  must  by  no  means 
overlook  the  difference  in  principle  between  Evolution  and  Revo- 
lution, lest  any  one  should  welcome  as  progress  that  which 
necessarily  leads  to  the  undermining  and  destruction  of  the  whole 
doctrinal  building.  True  progress  in  this  matter  consists  in  this, 
that  the  building  be  constantly  more  perfectly  erected  on  an 
immovable  foundation ;  in  other  words,  that  the  contents  of  the 
doctrine  of  Salvation  be  always  more  accurately  described,  more 
powerfully  justified,  more  thoroughly  developed,  and  more  generally 
applied,  whilst  a  constant  attention  is  paid  to  the  phenomena 
and  needs  of  the  time. 

1.  The  belief  in  progress  is  in  this  domain,  as  well  as  in  every  other,  a 
need,  a  duty,  and  a  blessing.     But  it  is  important,  in  order  that  no  one 
should  be  misled  by  great  words,  to  ask  as  to  this,  in  what  sense,  on  what 
grounds,  how  far,  and  by  what  path  ? 

2.  At  the  very   outset  we  must   distinguish  sharply  between  the  per- 
fectibility of  the  doctrine,  and  that  of  Christian  revelation.      The  doctrine 
of  the  objective  perfectibility  of  Christianity,   which,  proclaimed  in  early 
times  by  the  Montanists,  and  aftenvards  by  some  of  the  Mystics  of  the 
middle  ages,  was  enounced  in  the  commencement  of  the  preceding  century 
by  a  number  of  Rationalists,  is,  properly  understood,  nothing  else  but  a 
denial  of  the  historical  and  supranatural  character  of  saving  truth.     The 
case  is,  however,  different  when  we  consider  the  proposition  that  Dogmatics, 


ITS   PERFECTIBILITY.  69 

as  such,  is  capable  of  perfection,  and  has  a  constant  need  for  it.  Truth  is 
eternal,  but  the  insight  into  truth  may  be  made  clearer,  extended,  and  even 
in  some  respects  changed.  Thus  far  we  can  admit  for  Christian  dogma  the 
attribute  of  perfectibility  both  in  its  objective  and  subjective  meaning. 

3.  The  ground  for  this  proposition  lies  in  the  nature  of  saving   truth 
itself,  which  is  not  revealed  in  the  form  of  an  accurately  denned  system, 
but  rather  in  that  of  a  principle  of  life  which  is  gradually  showing  itself 
more  clearly.     Hence  we  find  in  Holy  Scripture  so  many  exhortations  to 
growth  in  the  knowledge  of  faith.11     In  all  ages  there  have  been  Christians 
who,  in  consequence  of  painful  deception,  listen  with  mistrust  to  the  demand 
for  progress  and  development  in  this  domain.     Their  dogmatising,  as  far  as 
we  can  speak  of  it,  is  nothing  but  an  endless  repeating  and  reiterating  of 
the  faith  which  has  been  once  delivered.     They  are  like  the  man  who  is 
always  counting  the  coins  which  he  has  inherited,  and  is  satisfied  if  only  the 
number  remains  undiminished,  without  troubling  himself  about  their  intrin- 
sic value.     It  is  plain  that  such  a  conservatism  is  devoid  of  all  spirit,  but  it 
is  also  in  conflict  with  all  Protestant  principle.     From  the  Romish  stand- 
point men  must  of  necessity  cling  to  a  Church  doctrine  which  is  considered 
infallible ;  but  the  true  son  of  the  Reformation,  the  advocate  of  freedom  of 
investigation,   must,  as  such,  also  believe  in   the   possibility   of  develop- 
ment     The  "  not  that  I  have  already  attained "  is  for  him,  even  in  a 
higher  degree  of  knowledge  of  faith,  the  expression  of  a  deep  conscious- 
ness, and  at  the  same  time  of  a  great  want.     At  best,  Dogmatics  is  the 
expression  of  the   consciousness  of  belief,  as  it  has  actually  and  for  the 
present  moment  developed  itself,  by  the  light  of  the  Gospel  and  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Church,  to  a  defined  and  clearly  measurable  height.     We  all 
stand  on  the  shoulders  of  our  predecessors ;  others  will  raise  themselves  on 
ours,  and  strive  to  see  further.     We  are  ourselves  constantly  correcting  our 
conceptions,  and    show  thus  that  our   former   ones   did    not   completely 
satisfy  us.      It   is  not  therefore   a  real  eulogium,  when  any  one  says  of 
himself  that  his  convictions  during  twenty  or  thirty  years  have  not  changed 
in  the  slightest  degree.     Though    our    knowledge    through    faith   is    the 
same   as    before,    yet   a  conscious   faith,  after  such  a  lapse  of  time,  will 
know  the  same  continually  in  another  and  better  degree.      "  Faith  must  be 
in  every  point  entire  and  firm ;   never  finished,  but  always  susceptible  of 
further  development."     (Schaff.) 

4.  Besides,  the  whole  history  of  Dogmatics  shows  us  not  only  a  restless 
striving  after,  but  a  constant,  though  sometimes  slow,  approach  to  greater 
perfection.      Even  in  the  first  apostles  a  constant  increase  in  Christian 
insight  cannot  be  denied.    (The  Petrine  doctrine,  etc.)    During  the  first  four 
centuries   we  hear   the  Christian  consciousness  as   to   the  person  of  the 
Redeemer  proclaiming  truth  continually  with  greater  firmness  and  clearness. 
The  sixteenth  century  adds  to  the  development  of  Soteriology  that  which  has 
not  been  supplied  by  any  one  before  ;  perhaps  the  same  may  hereafter  be  said 
e.g.,  on  the  subject  of  Eschatology  of  the  nineteenth  century     Every  side  ot 
the  truth,  which  is  now  better  understood  than  before,  casts  at  the  same  time 


11  I  Cor.  xiv.  26  ;  Eph.  iii.  14 — 19 ;  Col.  i.  9,  10 ;  I  Thess.  v.  21  ;  2  Peter  iii.  18. 


7Q  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

a  light  upon  other  sides  which  are  still  in  shadow.  How  could  the  perfecti- 
bility  of  Dogmatics  be  still  disputable  where  the  promise  of  the  Lord  (John 
xvi.  \  2—15)  is  understood,  believed,  and  fulfilled  ?  But  to  contemplate  that 
fulfilment,  we  must  look  back  not  merely  for  years,  but  for  centuries,  and 
never  forget  that  the  patiens  quia  aternus  is  of  constant  application  to 
the  operation  of  the  Spirit  of  truth  in  the  Church. 

5.  The  distinction  between  evolution  and  revolution  must  by  no  means 
be  passed  by,  when  the  question  is  asked,  How  far  must  this  progress 
extend?    We  must  here  look  for  amplification,  and  not  for  alteration.     It 
occurs  wherever  that  which  is  virtually  contained  in  principle  in  the  word 
of  truth  is  brought  gradually  into  light,  just  as  it  is  in  the  growth  of  a  child, 
who  does  not  get  any  new  limbs,  but  sees  those  which  it  already  has  slowly 
increase  and  strengthen.     We  see  development  in  the  opening  bud,  which 
opens  according  to  its  nature;  it  would  be  degeneration  if  the  rose  bush 
were  to  become  gradually  a  thorn.     "  Ad  profectum  pertinet  ut  in  semet 
ipsam  unaquseque  res  amplificetur ;  ad  permutationem  vero,  ut  aliquid  exalio 
in  aliud  transvertatur  "  (Vincentius  Lerinus).     Christianity  is  an  historic  reli- 
gion ;  and  when  this  is  evident,  it  can  never  be  welcomed  as  progress,  when 
this  its  character  is  first  neutralised  and  then  denied.     Progress  presup- 
poses that  we  remain  on  the  path  in  which  we  have  hitherto  been,  not  that 
we  all  at  once  choose   an   opposite  one    (/uerd/Sao-ts  ds  dXXo  7^05.)     Thus, 
Dogmatics  as  a  science  is  conservative  as  to  its  principles,  progressive 
as  to  their  development.     Just  as  it  was  once  with  the  fettered  Apostles,  the 
Christian  Dogmatic  spirit  sees  its  chains  from  time  to  time  broken,  even 
where  the  previous  forms  remain  intact  ;12  but  does  he  therefore,  any  more 
than  these  Apostles,  receive  a  command  to  preach  an  entirely  different 
Gospel  ? 

6.  After  all  that  has  been  said,  it  is  not  difficult  to  point  out  the  path  by 
which  we   may  approach  always  nearer  to  the   ideal  of  the   progressive 
character  of  Dogmatics.     We  must  welcome  it  as  progress  when  the  chief 
subject-matter  of  the  doctrine  of   salvation  is  described  with    continually 
increasing  accuracy.     Dogmatics  has  to  take  account,  not  merely  with  facts 
of  the  Christian  consciousness,  but  with  the  very  deeds  of  God  for  saving 
mankind  (e.g.,  revelation,  incarnation,  inspiration),  the  true  conception  of 
which  must  always  remain  defective.     Now  the  claim  cannot  be  that  what 
has  thus  far  been  only  believed,  should  henceforth  be  thoroughly  known — in 
that  case  we  could  no  longer  call  Dogmatics  a  science  of  faith — but  that 
we  conceive  something,  and  that  as  far  as  it  is  conceivable,  and  also  that 
we  know  why  we  cannot  go  any  further.     Our  business  is  with  a  Dogmatics, 
freed  from  the  dust,  but  not  from  the  learning,  of  the  schools ;  from  the 
thorns,  but  not  from  the  sharp  definitions,  of  the  old  systems  ;  a  scientific 
exposition  of  faith,  according  to  the  golden  word  of  Da  Costa,  "in  its 
essence  the  fruit  of  ages  :  in  outward  form,  of  these  our  days"  (V.  d.  Hoeven, 
jtinr.). — And  that  which  is  thus  more  accurately  defined,  ought  also  to  be 
continually  better  vindicated.    The  history  of  Apologetics  has  attested  that 
the  good  cause  has  been  defended  more  with  awkward  weapons  than  with 

12  Acts  v.  19 — 23. 


ITS  OBJECT.  71 

a  faulty  strategy ;  such  lessons  must  not  be  lost  on  the  Dogmatics  of  the 
present  time.  It  advances  when  it  looks  more  closely  into  the  nature  and 
strength  of  its  so-called  proofs,  which  it  not  only  counts,  but  also  weighs  ; 
while,  though  paying  special  heed  to  the  historical,  it  never  loses  sight  of 
the  psychological  mode  of  argument.  Moreover,  it  must  always  ally  itself 
more  frankly  with  each  element  of  truth  which  it  finds  even  beyond  its  own 
proper  bounds,  and  apply  the  "  all  things  are  yours"  without  any  fixed  limits. 
— Thus  it  acts  by  its  own  nature  so  that  its  object  may  be  always  developed 
more  thoroughly  and  fundamentally.  The  command,  "  Launch  out  into  the 
deep,"  is  laid,  too,  upon  Dogmatics.  That  which  really  can  be  understood 
by  faith,  it  must  not  only  desire,  but  also  attempt  to  know,  remembering  that 
it  has  to  do  first  with  the  Ita,  but  then  also  with  the  Quare,  of  spiritual 
matters.  Modesty  is  good,  but  it  must  not  become  a  cioak  for  sloth. 
Not  merely  a  deeper  knowledge  of  each  of  the  parts,  but,  above  all,  a 
more  accurate  and  thorough  estimation  of  the  whole,  is  the  boundless  task 
to  which  the  science  has  to  devote  its  powers. — Finally,  the  more  science 
is  applied  in  various  ways,  the  better  it  fulfils  its  duty.  The  light  which 
rose  on  her  domains  must  also  cast  its  beams  over  the  surrounding  country. 
True  theology  will  the  more  approach  its  ideal,  as  it  more  fully  contributes 
to  the  solution  of  the  various  questions  of  the  day,  and  to  the  healing  of 
the  reigning  diseases,  by  setting  forth  and  maintaining  the  eternal  truth.  So  far 
each  period  requires  its  own  elaboration  of  the  doctrine  of  faith,  and  no 
single  method  can  be  said  to  be  constantly  adequate  to  the  changing 
wants  of  different  centuries. 

Always  perfectible,  it  is  never  perfect  (§  v.).  To  understand  and  express 
thoroughly  the  truth,  we  ought  to  be  morally  perfect,  since  truth  and  life 
are  one.  Nevertheless,  the  object  of  Dogmatics  needs  not  remain  abso- 
lutely unattainable. 

Compare  the  Commonitorium  of  VINCENTIUS  LERINUS,  cap.  28;  Hcrzog,  R.  E.  x., 
p.  389,  sqq.  ;  KRUG,  Briefeiiberdie  Perfcctib'ditdt  der  Chr.  Rel.  (1795) ;  C.  F.  VON  AMMON, 
Fortbildung  dcs  Christenth.  zur  Weltreligion,  4  Th.  (1836-1840)  ;  LANGE,  Chr.  Dogtn.  i., 
§17;  SCHWEITZER,  Ckristl.  Glaubensl.  i.  (1803),  §§  20 — 22  j  J.  J.  VAN  OOSTERZEE, 
Reformatu  en  Revoiutie,  fifty  Aphorisms  (1867),  bl.  6. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Historic  progress  of  the  conflict  about  the  perfectibility  of  (i)  Christianity,  and  (2) 
of  Christian  Dogmatics. — What  is  the  meaning  of  I  Cor.  iii.  n — 15? — Elucidation  of 
I  Cor.  viii.  i — 3,  Col.  ii.  8,  etc. — Can  we  not  see  in  the  history  of  Dogmatics  standing 
still  and  retrogression? — How  may  the  distinction  between  reformation  and  revolution 
be  recognised  in  this  matter? — What  are  the  hindrances,  and  what  the  greatest  aids  to 
the  perfecting  of  Dogmatics  ? 


SECTION   XX. — ITS   OBJECT. 

The  final  object  of  Christian  Dogmatics  lies  not  in  the  science 
itself,  still  less  in  its  students  alone,  but  entirely  and  completely  in 


72  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

the  up-building  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  in  and  around  them,  and 
in  the  glorification  of  God,  which  inseparably  accompanies  it.  The 
intellectual  and  moral  attributes  of  its  students  must,  no  less  than 
the  method  of  its  proposition  and  study,  be  in  agreement  with  its 
object.  That  object  is  better  attained  in  proportion  as  the  student 
of  the  science  is  a  sincere  believer,  who  has  learnt  by  his  own 
experience  to  know  the  truth  as  life,  and  thus  also  as  light. 

1.  This  chapter,  which  began  with  the  question  as  to  the  starting-point 
of  dogmatic  investigation,  will  be  properly  concluded  with  that  as  to  its 
object,— "  Whence  comest  thou,  and  whither  goest  thou  ?"     It  is  evident 
that  this  part  of  the  science  is  often  studied  with  a  very  different  aim,  and 
so  it  is  the  more  necessary  to  point  out  with  what  object  it  must  be  studied. 

2.  We  cannot  find  the  object  of  our  science  in  itself,  still  less  in  its 
student.     The  maxim  that  science  should  only  be  studied  for  itself  is  as 
alluring,  but  also  as  deceptive,  as  the  oft-repeated,  "  Art  only  for  art's  sake, 
and  virtue  only  for  virtue's."    Here  we  accept  much  rather,  "  Sunt,  qui  scire 
volunt  ut  sciant,  et  magna  stultitia  est ;  sunt,  qui  scire  volunt  ut  sciantur, 
et  magna  inanitas  est."     Dogmatics  is  not  a  pure  abstract  science,  in  the 
sense  in  which  the  higher  mathematics  or  speculative  Philosophy  can  be 
so  called;    but  it  is  positive,  and,   as    to  its   tendency,  practical.      Its 
object  is  in  harmony  with  its  essence ;  the  science  of  the  mystery  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God  has  no  less  a  destination  than  to  serve  the  cause  of  that 
Kingdom  itself. 

3.  By  the  study  of  the  science  the  Kingdom  of  God  must  be  promoted 
first  of  all  in  its  student  himself.     We  have  not  to  do  here  with  a  mere 
"  scientia,"  but  with  a  "sapientia,"   not  incorrectly  called  by  J.  Gerson,  a 
"  cognitio  affectiva"     That  ideal  hovered  over  the  spirit  of  Melancthon, 
as  is  evident  from  his  beautiiul  words,  "  Ego  mihi  conscius  sum  me  nullam 

aliam  ob  causam  theologiam    tractasse,   nisi  ut  vitam  emendarem." • 

But  then  also  by  and  around  him.     Here  is  the  main  law,  not   "  vivat 
scientia,  et  pereat  coetus,"  but  "floreat  scientia,  et  sedificatur  Ecclesia." — 
It  is  the  merest  superficiality  to  assert  that  the   Church,  if  it  will  really 
flourish,  must  know  and  hear  as  little  as  possible  of  Dogmatics.     Men 
speak  of  "  barren  Dogmatics,"  of  "  Dogmatics  of  the  school,"  of  "  the 
corslet  of  Dogmatics,"  and  demand  that  religion  shall  be  preached  without 
Dogmatics.     As  if  such  a  thoughtless  wish  did  not  ask  for  the  utterly 
unattainable  !     As  if  they  who  resisted   all  Dogmatics  did  on  that  account 
cling  less  to  their  own  dogmas  !     As  if  the  in  many  respects  weak  and 
faulty  doctrine  of  faith,  which  rules  the  life  of  the  Church,  could  be  succeeded 
and  conquered  by  anything  than  by  a  better !     As  if  the  need  for  "  more 
light "  was  not  always  revealing   itself  even  here  !     It  is  evident  that  the 
systematic  apathy  and  antipathy  to  Dogmatics  can  in  its  results  be  nothing 
else  but  fatal  to  all  spiritual  and  church  life,  which,  on  the  contrary,  will  be 
the  more  powerfully  advanced  in  proportion  to  its  prosperity.     Then  only, 
however,  has  this  study,  specially  when  carried  out  in  the  spirit  of  the 
Reformation,  first  attained  its  object,  when  Pie  is  glorified,  by  and  through 


ITS  OBJECT.  73 

whom  all  things  even  in  the  kingdom  of  science  exist  It  is  with  the 
in  majorem  Dei  gloriam  in  his  heart  that  man  can  step  boldly  within  the 
sanctuary. 

4.  The  study  of  the  science  must  be  organised  in  agreement  with  this 
object.     We  may  lay  down  as  our  rule  "Dogmatics  will  not  surfer  itself  to 
be  acquired  by  mere  study  ;  it  must,  as  a  spiritual  possession,  be  striven 
after,  and  gained  in  earnest  struggle."     (Hagenbach.) 

Hearing  from  others  must  continually  accompany  and  amplify  our  own 
meditation  ;  the  study  of  separate  dogmas  must  precede,  before  we  can  with 
a  successful  result  try  to  frame  our  own  sketch  of  the  complete  Dogmatics. 
Everything  must  begin  with  a  thorough  explanation  of  Scripture  ;  to  tb; 
must  be  added  the  historico-critical  invesigation  of  Church  Confessions  ;  ana 
then  only  do  we  come,  by  the  increasing  light  of  experience,  on  the  right 
way  to  pass,  with  independence  and  decision,  a  Christian  philosophical  judg- 
ment on  the  principal  questions  of  life.  Throughout  all  this  work  we  must 
never  for  a  moment  pass  over  the  peculiar  character  of  our  science.  "  The 
science  of  faith  contains  two  quite  distinct  elements — one,  variable  and 
and  progressive,  the  conception  always  imperfect  and  always  perfectible,  of 
the  fact  of  salvation  and  the  inductions  which  are  made  therefrom  ;  the  other 
immovable — viz.,  the  fact  of  salvation  itself;  externally  the  revelation  of 
God  in  Jesus  Christ ;  internally  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the 
heart :  it  is  on  this  fact  of  history  and  experience  that  the  thoughts  of  the 
theologian  are  exercised.  To  be  always  drawing  nearer  to  a  more  perfect 
comprehension  of  that  which  God  has  given  him  the  grace  to  believe,  and 
to  express  scientifically  that  faith,  is  the  aim  of  the  Christian  theologian  " 
(J.  Monod).  The  presentation,  by  word  of  mouth,  of  this  science  which 
will  promote  this  end,  can,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  only  be  a  regularly 
coherent  and  progressive  one  (acroamatic  not  erotematistic  or  Socratic)  unin- 
terruptedly pursued  in  an  unbroken  line  from  step  to  step,  and  now  and 
then  interchanged  by  a  freer  discussion. 

5.  Above  all,  this  object  requires  intellectual  and  moral  qualities  in  the 
student  of  Dogmatics,  which  we  must  leave  not  unnoticed  :  "  Decision  with- 
out exclusiveness  or  rebuking   presumptuousness ;  independence,  without 
vain   self-sufficiency;    consistency  without   intolerance ;    firmness  without 
obstinacy  or  passion  :  and  all  this,  resting  on  the  basis  of  a  Christian  mind, 
guided  by  the  fulness  of  the  Spirit  and   of  science,   is  what  makes  the 
theologic   character"    (Ullmann).      When    looked   at   more   closely,    the 
threefold  claim  of  oratio,   meditatio,   tentatio,  obtains  a  higher  importance. 
"Orando   facilius  Deus  invenitur,  quam   disputando "    (A.  H.  Francke). 
Further,  we  require,  in  the  study  of  Dogmatics,  that  profound  mind  which 
has  the  courage  to  leave  the  safer  course  along  the  coast,  and  boldly  put 
out  to  sea,  and  which  looks  for  something  more   than  mere  sounds  ;  a 
degree  of  truth  which  will  learn  not  only  from  friend,  but  from  foe ;  and, 
in  continued  investigation,  asks  for  something  more  than  a  confirmation  of 
our  own  deeply  rooted  thoughts  ;  an  independence  of  spirit,  too,  which 
is  true  to  the  nemini  cuiquam  me  mancipavi;  u  a  holy   liberality  (gentle- 


i  Cor.  vii.  23. 


74  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

ness)  towards  those  of  different  views,  diametrically  opposed  to  any  unholy 
liberalism ;  an  honesty  which  does  not  look  on  language  as  given  to  con- 
ceal our  thoughts,  and  which  simply  speaks  what  it  can  justify  before 
the  God  of  truth ;  and,  above  all,  a  seriousness,  which  never  touches  that 
which  is  holy  but  with  pure  hands.  Frivolity  and  would-be  humorism  is 
far  from  being  a  happy  phenomenon  in  the  ecclesiastical  or  dogmatic  world. 
How  sad  is  it  to  hear  some  play  with  principles,  or  consider  that  they  are  but 
logarithmic  formulae,  concerning  a  subject  external  to  themselves.  And  yet 
we  are  not  treating  here  of  a  truth  over  which  we  are  only  to'  argue,  but  of 
one  which  is  to  be  held  by  us,  and  from  which  we  are  to  point  to  others 
the  way  of  life.  QeoXoyeiv  Sh  ov  rfx"o\oy€iv  (Basilius  Magnus.) 

6.  This  object  cannot  possibly  be  gained  unless  the  student  of  the 
science  is  at  the  same  time  a  sincere  believer.  Only  the  7rto-T«6y  can  become 
yvuffriK&s ;  only  the  disciple  of  Christ  the  genuine  doctor  of  Theology.  The 
nature  of  the  case,  history,  and  experience,  all  equally  proclaim  the  same 
maxim,  which  only  needs  one  word  to  prevent  misunderstanding.  This 
maxim  does  not  at  all  declare  that  we  must  wait  with  all  dogmatic  studies 
until  we  are  wholly  fit  to  speak  of  a  proper,  well-founded,  and  full-grown 
spiritual  life ;  on  the  contrary,  the  doctrine  of  faith,  studied  with  diligence 
and  success,  may  be  the  very  means  of  increasing  spiritual  life.  But 
where  there  is  an  entire  want  of  every  principle  of  a  life  of  faith,  there  we 
had  better  not  begin  this  study  ;  and  then  only  shall  we  enter  upon  it 
steadily  and  prosperously  when  we  stand  in  close  union  with  Him  who  is 
the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life.  Spirit  alone  can  understand  the  Spirit ; 
only  life  can  conceive  the  life.  n/>a£u  tiripa<ns  deupias.  (Gregory  Nazian- 
zen).  Where  this  principle  of  life  really  exists,  there  the  object,  at 
least  to  a  certain  degree,  is  attained,  and — the  general  introduction  of 
Christian  Dogmatics  can  close  with  no  fairer  prospects — the  words  of  the 
wise  man  of  old  are  fulfilled  :  "  The  way  of  life  is  upwards  to  the  wise."  " 

Comp.  E.  D.  KRUMMACHER,  Expectorationen  iiber  d.  Siud.  der  Theol.  (1847)  ; 
SCHENKEL  (Senr.),  Die  Idee  der  Personlichktit  in  ihrer  Zeitbedeutung  fur  die  Theol. 
Wissensch,  u.s.w.  (1850) ;  J.  J.  VAN  OosTER7.EE,  Toespraken  tot  opening  der  Acad.  Less. 
in  1865,  1866,  i868,/or«;w;  J.  J.  DOELES,  De  ThcoL  btudiengang  geschetst.  (1866). 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

The  different  aims  with  which  our  science  has  been  studied  in  earlier  and  later  times. — 
Connexion  of  the  aim,  which  is  here  pointed  out,  with  the  spirit  and  tendency  of  Re- 
formed Dogmatics. — The  true  theologian,  at  the  same  time,  taught  of  God. — The  Life  the 
Light  of  men  (John  i.  4). 


11  Prov.  xv.  24. 


PART  I. 

THE  APOLOGETIC  FOUNDATION. 


CHAPTER    I. 
RELIGION. 


SECTION    XXI. — ITS    NATURE. 

WE  require,  as  the  foundation  for  the  building  of  Christian 
Dogmatics,  an  express  examination,  both  as  to  its  nature  and 
character,  of  Religion,  viewed  generally.  In  order  to  define  that 
nature  accurately,  we  must  not  only  observe  the  word,  but 
specially  the  thing  itself;  since  it,  amidst  an  endless  variety 
of  forms,  when  properly  considered,  always  displays  the  same 
character — of  man  in  personal  relation  with  God.  Thus  the  word 
denotes,  subjectively,  a  certain  tendency  of  man's  spiritual  life  ; 
whilst  objectively  is  indicated  the  veneration  of  God,  which 
springs  up  in  consequence  of  this  tendency.  The  biblical  use 
of  the  word  agrees  with  this  description,  whilst  a  comparison 
with  other  definitions  shows  that  this  is  to  be  preferred. 

i.  The  investigation  into  the  contents  and  foundation  of  religious  truth, 
to  which  Dogmatics  has  to  devote  itself,  necessarily  rests  on  an  accurate 
and  exact  conception  of  Religion  itself.  For  what  profit  will  the  most 
closely  dogmatic  demonstration  be  to  him  who  considers  the  whole 


76  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

subject  to  which  it  belongs  an  idle  fancy  ?  In  proportion,  then,  as  the 
study  of  dogma  obtained  a  more  philosophic  character,  was  the  absolute 
necessity  of  such  profound  investigation  more  unanimously  felt  and  recog- 
nised. Yet  we  can  here  only  express  and  attest  briefly,  what  must  else- 
where— e.g.,  in  treating  of  Natural  Theology — be  examined  more  at  length. 

2.  In  order  to  understand  rightly  the  nature  of  religion,  we  must  neither 
lose  ourselves  in  the  etymology  of  the  word,  nor  must  we  attend  only  to 
single,  even  though  they  be  very  eminent,  manifestations  of  religious  life.    For 
the  thing  itself  is  far  older  than  the  word,  and  even  its  lower  forms  belong 
to  that  highest  sphere  of  life,  which  exhibits  to  us  all  the  nobility  of 
religion.     We  must  trace  out  the  general  truth  which  forms  the  foundation 
of  what  is  more  particular,  and  not  until  this  subject  has  been  properly 
elucidated  are  we  in  a  position  to  make  an  intelligent  choice  between  the 
different  derivations  of  the  word. 

3.  Our  first  glance  at  the  religious  life  of  mankind  shows  such  an  endless 
variety,  that  we  have  scarcely  courage  to  speak  of  a  higher  unity.     First, 
because  religion    is  the  highest  and  holiest  of  all    things  for   him  who 
seriously  accepts  it,  its  inner  nature  is  not  so  easily  distinguished  as  those 
which  belong  to  the  world  of  sense.     And  yet  we  soon  discover,  as  well  in 
the  most  savage  Fetich  worshipper,  as  in  the  most  philosophic  Theist,  an 
inward  compulsion  to  rise,  not  merely  above  themselves  and  this  visible 
woild,   but  to  the    Endless,    to   the    Godhead,    whatever   their   view    of 
the  Godhead  may  be  ;  a  longing  to  give  something  to  God,  and  to  receive 
something  in  return  from  Him ;  a  striving,  in  a  word,  to  enter  into  an  imme- 
diate relation  with  Him.     It  is  upon  this  phenomenon  that  we  base  our 
definition.     Religion  is  Life ;  each  revelation  of  the  religious  sense  is  at 
the  same  time  a  manifestation  of  life.     Of  man;  for  to  him,  as  distinguished 
from  other  creatures,  must  we  here  exclusively  attend.     In  personal  com- 
munion with  God ;  for  with  this  communion,  whatever  may  be  its  nature  or 
fruit,  Religion  has  always  to  do,  and  without  self-consciousness  and  freedom 
it  is  utterly  impossible.  Since,  however,  every  communion  is,  from  the  nature 
of  the  case,  reciprocal,  we  can  distinguish  between  Religion  in  its  active 
and  passive  sense.     Passive  religion  we  might  call  an  existence  of  God  in 
man  ;  active  religion,  an  existence  of  man  in  God.     The  contrast  between 
religion  in  the  subjective  and  objective  sense  of  the  word  is,  however, 
simpler  and  plainer.     The  first  denotes  the  inner  striving,  which  serves  as 
the  foundation  of  every  religious  action ;  the   other,  the  various  forms  of 
worship  in  which  this  desire  reveals  itself.     It  is  only  in  the  latter  sense 
that  we  can  speak,  in  the  plural,  of  religions.     In  the  really  religious  man, 
objective  and  subjective  religion  is  united ;  with  the  hypocrite  and  forma.ist, 
they  are  often  directly  opposed  to  one  another. 

4.  The  words,  by  which  Religio  has  been  described  in  earlier  and  later 
times,  denote  this  state  of  the  case.     According  to  Cicero  (D.  JV.  D.  ii.  28), 
Religio  is  derived  from  relegere=diligenter  retractare,  a  derivation  certainly 
preferable  to  that  given  by  Lactantius  (Hist.  Div.,  iv.  28),  where  he  con- 
siders it  derived  from   religare,  to   bind  back.     It  denotes  a  disposition 
and  dedication  of  spirit  like  that  which  is  expressed  in  the  German  Andacht, 
the  peculiar  tendency  of  the  inner  life,  and  its  self-concentration  in  the  most 
exalted  object.     In  mcdern  languages,  even  as  in  the  Dutch,  we  feel  the 


ITS   NATURE.  77 

want  of  an  accurate  name.  The  German  Frommigkeit  still  remains  the 
best;  unfortunately  the  Dutch  Vroom  has  acquired  an  unfavourable  sound  in 
the  ears  of  many.  This  is  the  case  too  with  Godzaligheid  (fulness  of  God), 
which  has  a  somewhat  pietistic  flavour.  The  words,  Godsvrucht  (furcht) 
and  Godsdienst  (God's  service),  exhibit,  when  literally  taken,  a  too  decidedly 
legal  character.  Godeleven  (Life  for  God),  in  the  sense  in  which  we  speak 
of  natural  or  spiritual  life,  seems  more  fit,  provided  we  associate  it  in  our 
thoughts,  especially  with  the  inner  life ;  an  idea  which  in  the  Greek  words, 
OpijffKfia,  \arpfia,  5fi<n.8aifj.oi>la,  is  either  wanting,  or  only  obtains  a  part  of  its 
right. 

5.  The  religious  life  and  striving  is  set  forth  in  Holy  Scripture  in  a  very 
varied,  but  most  sententious  manner.     The  idea  of  personal  communion  is 
strikingly  indicated  in  the  account  of  Enoch's  walk  with  God  (Gen.  v.  24), 
of  Abraham's  faith  and  piety  (Gen.  xv.  i,  xvii.  i,  xxii.  12),  and  of  the  fear  of 
God  (Gen.  xlii.  18)  which  adorned  Joseph.     Love  to  God  is  the  highest 
demand  of  the  law  on  Israel  (Deut.  vi.  5),  and  faith  is  the  demand  of  the 
prophets  (Isa.  vii.   9;    Hab.  ii.  4).     We    ought   also  to  observe  the  de- 
scription of  those  persons  in  whom  this  disposition  is  the  ruling  one  (Luke 
i.  6  ;  ii.  25),  and  of  the  perfect  servant  of  the  Lord,  "who  shall  be  of  quick 
understanding  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord"  (Isa.  xi.  3).     In  the  New  Testa- 
ment the  objective  side  of  the  matter  is  described  as  \a.rpda  (Rom.  xii.  i) 
and  ep-qffKfLa.  (James  i.  27),  and  the  subjective  as  7r/<ms,  whilst  in  the  word 
ewre/3et'a  (i  Tim.  iv.  7,  8)  the  two  are  united. 

6.  It  will  not  be  difficult,  after  these  remarks,  to  point  out  the  defects 
which  are  to  be  found  in  several  definitions  of  religion,  which  have  been 
current   at   various   times.      The   older    dualistic    definition    (Reinhard), 
certus  modus  Dcum  cognoscendi  et  co/endi,  will  certainly  not  find  approval 
anywhere.     But  that  of  Schleiermacher  also,  which  describes  Religion  as 
Hinneigung  Zum  Wdtall,  cannot  be  used  for  theistic  religious  forms  without 
further  explanation.     In  that  of  Kant,  who  understands  by  Religion  "  the 
acknowledgment  of  our  duties  towards  the  law  of  God,"  a  too  partial  stress 
is  laid  on  the  ethical  facts,  while,  not  to  speak  of  others,  in  that  of  Hegel, 
— Religion  =  God's  thinking  and  knowing  Himself  in  the   human   con- 
sciousness,— God  is  not  only  the  object,  but  the  subject  of  Religion  ;  and 
this  last  is  an  action  and  reaction  of  God  upon  Himself.      Enough  has 
been  already  said  to  show  that  the  definition  which  we  have  given  deserves 
preference  in  more  than  one  way. 

Religion  is  nothing  less  than  a  communion  of  life,  and  in  this  character 
different  from  religious  knowledge  or  philosophy.  "  Whilst  the  masters  in 
the  domains  of  art  and  science  have  the  image  of  God  only  in  the  mirror 
of  their  thoughts  and  phantasy,  the  pious  believer  possesses  it  in  his  own 
being  "  (Martensen). 

Compare  as  to  this  entire  chapter  the  article  Religion  und  Offenbarung,  byj.  KOSTLIN,  in 
Herzog,  R.  E.  xii.  etc.,  besides  LUTHARDT,  Apologet.  Vortriige  (1864),  §  97,  with  notes; 
and  particularly  O.  PFLEIDERER,  Die  Religion,  ihrWesen  und  Hire  Geschichte,  i.  (1869).  ^ee 
also  C.  W.  OPZOOMER,  D:  Godsdienst  (1867),  and  the  various  replies  and  essays. 
Compare  especially  J .  M UELLER,  Ueber  Bildung  und  Gebrauch  des  IVortes  Religio.  Stud,  und 
AV//.(i835),  i. ;  REDSLOB,  SprachlicheAbhandlungenzurTheol.(\'&ip),w.\ — 40;  LECHLER, 
£emerkungen  zum  Begriff  der  Religion  mil  besondern  Rucksicht  auf  die  psychol.  Fragcn 
Stud,  und  Kritik  (1851),  iv. ;  J.  J.  DOEDES,  Leer  van  6^(1871),  p.  241,  sqq. 


78  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Necessity  of  a  preliminary  investigation  of  religion  in  general,  especially  in  the  present 
day  —  Determination  of  the  idea,  attempted  in  various  ways.— The  higher  unity  of  all 

religious  life. Criticism  of  the  various  derivatives  and  designations  of  the  word. — Does 

the°description  of  Religion  in  the  writings  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  exhibit  quite 
the  same  character? — Critical  comparison  of  some  other  definitions  of  the  idea. — Difference 
between  the  purely  esthetic  and  the  really  ethic  appreciation  of  Religion. 


SECTION   XXII. — ITS   ORIGIN. 

Religion,  which  is  as  old  and  as  widespread  as  mankind  upon 
the  earth,  is  as  little  the  product  of  silly  fancy  as  of  cunning 
calculation.  It  has  its  origin  in  the  nature  and  essence  of  man, 
who  cannot  truly  live  without  God  ;  and  it  is  thus  a  consequence  of 
the  original  relation  of  mankind  to  God,  which  was  thus  willed 
by  God  Himself.  The  early  awakening  religious  feeling  is  in 
reality  nothing  else  but  the  consciousness  of  that  relation  of  which 
we  are  constantly  becoming  more  distinctly  aware  from  every 
glance  within  and  around  us.  Hence  each  man  has  unconditional 
claims  on  Religion,  as  Religion  in  turn  has  on  him  ;  and  the  denial 
of  all  religious  belief,  as  far  as  such  is  possible,  is  nothing  less  than 
the  violation  of  our  own  nature. 

i.  The  investigation  into  the  nature  of  religion  leads  naturally  to  the 
question  as  to  its  ground  ;  and  here  it  occurs  to  us  at  once  that  we  have  to 
do  with  something  more  than  a  mere  sporadic  phenomenon.  "  You  may 
see  towns  without  laws,  or  coins,  or  literature,  but  no  one  has  ever  yet  seen 
a  people  without  a  God  or  prayer,  without  religious  ceremonies  or  sacri- 
fices." This  phenomenon  has  been  pointed  out  by  numberless  writers  of 
antiquity,1  and  their  testimony  has  been  contradicted,  but  never  confuted, 
by  those  of  later  inquirers.  Travellers  who  had  asserted  that  they  had 
met  with  nations  without  any  religion,  have  not  seldom  been  seen  to  have 
been  partially  or  imperfectly  informed  ;  and  even  where  a  belief  in  a  God- 
head was  wanting,  there  appeared  the  fear  of  a  devil.  At  the  worst,  we 
might  ask  with  Rousseau,  "  whether  we  can  have  any  doubt  as  to  the 
existence  of  a  well-organized  class  of  beings,  because  a  tew  monsters  have 
been  found  among  them?"  and,  above  all,  whether  that  which  may  seem 
to  us  Atheism,  as,  e.g.,  the  religion  of  the  Buddhistic  peoples,  be  such,  too,  from 
the  standpoint  of  those  who  have  accepted  this  form  of  religion.  Even  the 
child  never  hears  of  God  or  Divine  things,  without  at  once  revealing  his 

1  ARISTOT.,  De  ccelo,  i.  3;  Cic.,  D.  N.  £>.,  i.  3;  Tusc.  Dispp.  \ — 13;    SENECA, 
Epist.  117. 


ITS  ORIGIN.  79 

natural  inclination  to  accept  at  once  this  belief;  and  where  it  is  lost,  that  loss 
has  always  been  preceded  by  the  violent  suppression  of  another  conviction. 

2.  This  phenomenon,  old  and  general  as  it  is,  can  have  as  little  been 
born  of  fear  as  of  policy  or  deceit.     The  well-known  primus  in  orbe  Deos 
fecit  terror  is  the  veriest  superficiality.     Sacerdotal  imposture  !   it  is  easy 

enough  to  utter  the  words,  but  whence  came  the  priests  themselves,  and 
the  universal  sway  of  the  fear  ?  Tradition  !  but  whence  did  it  come,  and 
whence  its  power  to  resist  so  much  which  contradicted  and  opposed  it  ? 
He  who  speaks  of  a  "  world-wide  delusion,"  must  at  least  explain  how  it  is 
that  all  mankind  has  been  smitten  with  an  incurable  monomania,  or  must 
allow  that  "  it  is  as  natural  to  man  to  believe  in  a  God,  as  to  walk  upon 
two  feet"  (Lichtenberger).  With  what  right  does  he  who  mistrusts  the 
utterances  of  the  moral  and  religious  consciousness,  listen  to  those  of  the 
rational  consciousness,  since  the  credibility  of  the  two  is  most  closely  and 
intimately  connected  ? 

3.  With  full  confidence  we  call  man  a  religious  being,  just  as,  e.g.,  he 
may  be  called  a  social  being.    We  do  not  therefore  declare  that  all  men  are 
(actually)  religious,  but  that  man  (potentially),  as  such,  is  originally  designed 
and  born  for  religion.     He  has  a  feeling  of  religion,  just  as  he  has  a  feeling 
of  beauty  or  of  truth.      The  spiritual  vis  vitalis,  the  central  function  of 
personal  life,  is  religion.     Religion  is  the  deepest,  or  the  absolute  relation 
of  man  ;  his  relation  absolutely  we  might  even  say,  man  himself  in  this  his 
fundamental  relation  (Lange) ;  in  other  words,  religion  is  the  being  of  man. 
Everything  within  him  cries  after  the  living  God,  his  reason,  his  heart,  his 
conscience.     The  reason  cannot  rest  until  it  has  found  the  highest  unity, 
the  final  cause ;  the  heart  remains  void  and  restless  when  occupied  with 
the  finite  only  ;  the  conscience  proclaims  a  law,  but  postulates  thereby  the 
lawgiver.     Certainly  God  Himself  is  the  greatest  mystery,  but,  at  the  same 
time,  the  only  key  to  the  mystery  of  man  and  mankind.    "  Take  away  God, 
and  life  is  decapitated,"  is  the  dictum  of  the  Christian  philosopher  Naville. 
Let  us  even  say,  Take  away  God,  and  not  only  is  the  head  of  humanity 
struck  off,  but  its  heart  torn  from  its  bosom.     This,  too,  was  the  supreme 
reason  for  the  destroying  punishment  of  the  flood  ;  mankind  had  become 
atheistic,  not   polytheistic  ;  had  lost  God,  and  itself  too ;    had   become 
inhuman,  and  morally  impossible  thereby ;   because  man  without  God  is  no 
longer  man,  but  either  beast,  or  stone,  or  vegetable — nothing  more.     The 
possibility  of  becoming  truly  man,  inborn  in  every  one,  is  only  realized  by  a 
personal  communion  with  God,  the  natural  element  of  man,  as  water  is  of 
the  fish,  and  air  of  the  bird. 

4.  If  Religion   in  man   may   thus   be   called    something    natural   and 
original,   the   last   ground  for  this  phenomenon  cannot  possibly  exist  in 
mankind  itself.     Religion  is  based  on  the  essence  of  man,  because  the 
essence  of  man  is  based  in  God.     "  Self-consciousness,  essentially  and  origi- 
nally, is  neither  the  firm  basis  nor  the  constant  cause  of  Religion  "  (Beck). 
Man  requires  God,  because  God,  whatever  may  be  our  conception  of  God, 
has  created  him  for  Himself.2     The  existence  of  the  fruit  could  never  be 


1  Ad  Tecreasti. — AUGUSTINE. 


80  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

explained,  if  the  seed  were  not  cast  into  the  fitting  soil  by  the  planter's  own 
hand.  All  deeper  thought  confirms  the  proposition,  "  There  cannot  be  a 
Religion  without  an  active  God  "  (Schelling).  Religion  is  thus  not  merely 
sweet  and  charming  poetry,  but  rather  the  defective  expression  of  the 
sublimest  reality.  God  has  put  Himself  originally  in  communication  with 
mankind  ;  and  by  this  act  of  God  an  indestructible  consciousness  has  been 
implanted  in  man.8  Little  ground  as  there  is  for  the  hypothesis  of  innate 
ideas,  we  have  yet  much  right  to  assume  that  a  dim  conception  (Ahnung) 
ot  the  Infinite  slumbers  in  the  depth  of  each  human  heart  That  conscious- 
ness, sprung  from  this  already  pre-existent  relation,  develops  itself  so  soon  as 
mm  comes  to  a  knowledge  of  himself  and  of  the  world  around  him.  It  is 
aroused,  not  in  consequence  of  a  logical  conclusion  (for  then  the  deepest 
aspirations  of  the  heart  would  not  be  explained),  but  as  a  remembrance 
(Inne  werden)  of  something,  which  originally  has  been  given  ;  as  a  natural 
impulse  of  life  towards  a  point,  where  we,  as  it  were  instinctively,  feel  that 
we  must  be.  The  more  man  develops  his  nature,  the  more  he  strives  after 
God;4  and,  again,  the  more  religious  he  is,  the  more  human  does  he 
become  in  the  real  sense  of  the  word.  "  Domine,  quia  nos  creasti  ad  Te, 
cor  nostrum  inquietum  in  nobis,  donee  requiescat  in  Te  "  (Augustine). 

5.  This  doctrine  seeks  not  in  vain  for  support  and  commendation  in  the 
words  of  Holy  Scripture.     The  Old  Testament  has  already  given  eloquent 
testimony  thereto,  while  the  New  Testament,  and  St.  Paul  specially,  do  the 
same.     This,  too,  is  the  profound  meaning  of  the  sacred  declaration  that 
everything  was  made,  not  only  by  but  for  the  Logos,  the  Son  of  God.5    The 
heart  of  man  seeks  after  God,  because  man  is  made  after  the  image  of  God, 
the  Logos.     On  this,  too,  we  ground,  first,  the  right  of  each  man  to  religion 
(in  a  similar  sense  to  that  in  which  he  may,  against  others,  Jay  claim  to  that 
which  he  absolutely  requires  for  the  realization  of  his  life's  destiny) ;  and 
then,  the  unconditional  claim  of  religion  upon  him  and  on  the  application 
of  all  his  powers.     We  cannot  demand  from  every  man  to  be  ingenious  or 
talented ;  but  we  may  ask  that  he  be  religious,  because,  and  so  far  as,  he  is 
really  man.     Indifferentism  on  this  point  is  both  unnatural  and  immoral, 
even  where  it  comes  with  the  mask  of  toleration. 

6.  The  question  whether  there   are   atheists  is   properly  distinguished 
from  that,  whether  peoples  have  been  found  without  religion,  and  has  always 
been  differently  answered.     In  any  case,  they  are  less  in  numbers  than  has 
often  been  supposed,  and  not  without  reason  are  we  warned  not  to  consider 
any  one  too  quickly  as  an  atheist,  or  even  as  entirely  without  religion.     Yet, 
when  we  regard  the  wiles    of  Satan  as   they  have  been   shown  in   this 
century,  we  cannot  deny  entirely  the  existence  of  Atheism,  which  both 
theoretically  and  practically  is   constantly  gaining  more  frightful  power. 
Least  of  ail  can  we  do  so  now,  when  there  are  those  who  do  not  hesitate 
to  declare :  "  Even  Atheism  is  still  a  religious  system  ;  the  Atheist  is  not 
freer  than  the  Jew  who  eats  ham.     We  must  not  wrestle  with  religion,  we 
must  forget  it"  (Ruge).     Some  really  have  made  great  progress  in  this 

•  Gen.  ii.  7 :  Ecc.  iii.  1 1 ;  Ps.  Ixxiii.  25,  26  ;  Amos  v.  6. 
4  Acts  xvii.  27,  28  ;  Rom.  i.  19,  20;  xi.  36. 
6  John  i.  4  ;  Col.  i.  16. 


ITS  SEAT.  8 1 

forgetfulness ;  their  religion  has  become  a  worship  of  genius ;  their  worship 
of  genius  a  worship  of  self;  though  even  in  this  form  their  need  of  venera- 
tion and  prayer  be  unmistakable.  And  yet,  though  the  fool  says,  not 
merely  in  his  heart,  but  with  his  mouth  and  life,  "There  is  no  God," 
this  blasphemy  proves  nothing  against  the  truth.  No  one  has  begun  by 
being  an  Atheist;  and  he  who,  after  a  long  violation  of  his  nature,  has 
become  an  Atheist,  and  continues  to  be  one,  ceases  then  to  be  really  a 
man,  i.e.,  to  be  a  rational  and  moral  being.  Atheism,  not  Religion,  is 
monomania.  Our  relation  to  God  is  not  merely  the  fruit,  but  the  foun- 
dation of  our  entire  personality ;  that  which  really  forms  that  personality, 
and  gives  it  its  tone  and  measure.  This  will  be  more  clearly  seen  when 
we  have  looked  at  the  seat  of  religion. 

Comp.  J.  P.  ROMANO,  Natiirl.  Rel.  Lehre  (1841),  §§  9 — 29  ;  A.  DES  AMORIE  VAN  IJER 
HOEVEN,  Jr.,  De  Godsdienst,  het  Wezen  van  den  Mensch.  (1848);  E.  NAVII.LE,  Lc  Pere 
Celeste,  Sept.  Discours.  (1865),  pp.  35 — 144 ;  DE  QUATREFAGES,  Les  Caracteres  superieurs  de 
la  race  humaine,  in  the  Revue  Chretienne  for  1867,  p.  519,  sqq. ;  GUIZOT,  Meditations,  ii. 
(1866),  p.  353,  sqq. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Criticism  of  the  most  noted  objections  which  in  our  times  have  been  urged  against  the 
universality  of  Religion. — How  far  is  Religion  properly  called  the  essence  of  man  ? — 
Historical  and  philological  evidence  in  support  of  the  enunciated  principle.—  -Why  cannot 
Religion  in  man  be  explained  entirely  and  solely  from  man  himself? — The  connexion 
between  the  development  of  the  consciousness  of  self,  of  the  world,  and  of  God. — Does 
any  degree  of  truth  lie  at  the  base  of  the  doctrine  of  idea  innate  ? — Elucidation  of  the 
scriptural  proof. — How  is  the  progress  and  power  of  Atheism  in  the  present  century  to  be 
explained  ? 


SECTION  XXIII. — ITS  SEAT. 

Religion,  founded  on  the  nature  and  essence  of  mankind,  occupies 
a  place  quite  peculiar  in  the  inner  life  of  man.  We  must  not  look 
exclusively  for  the  seat  of  the  religious  principle  either  in  the  Reason, 
or  in  the  Will,  or  in  the  Feeling,  or  in  the  Conscience.  In  the  inmost 
sanctuary  of  the  Soul,  where  these  are  still  originally  one  and  undi- 
vided, is  seen  the  fountain-head  of  the  spiritual,  and  specially  of 
the  God-life  of  mankind.  Starting  from  this  centre,  Religion  em- 
braces, penetrates,  and  directs  in  the  truly  religious  man  his  entire 
internal  and  external  existence.  It  is  in  this  central  position  which 
Religion  occupies,  that  the  secret  of  its  power,  the  cause  of  its 
conflict,  the  warrant  of  its  imperishable  stability  and  future 
triumph  lies. 

G 


g2  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

1.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  remind  that  the  seat  of  the  religious  prin- 
ciple in  man  is  not  in  any  case  to  be  found  in  the  material  sphere.     The 
phenomenon  that  the  religious  life  is  often  most  completely  developed 
where  bodily  strength  decays,1  serves  as  a  proof  to  the  contrary.     Might 
it  then  be  preferable  to  place  the  seat  of  religion  in  our  reason  ?     That 
it  was  often  looked  for  there  appears,  if  we  cast  our  eyes  at  Scholasticism, 
Orthodoxism,  or,  not  to  mention  any  other  philosophic  schools,  Hegel- 
ianism.     And  yet  we  must  reject  this  conception,  as  plainly  contradicting 
the  facts.    For  do  we  not  see  the  religious  life  more  completely  developed 
just  where  the  intellectual  is  most  contracted,  and  a  most  extended  know- 
ledge of  God  accompanied  with  entire  Godlessness  ? a     Religion  unites 
men  ;  but  is  there  anything  which  separates  them  more  than  their  notions 
of  religion  ?     Does  not  experience  teach  us  that  in  many  the  so-called 
sound  understanding  stands  in  the  way  of  religious  belief?8  and  does  not 
Holy  Scripture  oppose  most  emphatically  the  presumption  of  knowledge  on 
this  subject  ?  *    It  is  in  vain  that  some  appeal  to  expressions,  such  as  John 
viii.  32,  xvii.  3,  Eph.  v.  17,  in  favour  of  this  definition,  as  the  knowledge 
and  understanding  here  alluded  to  is  quite  another  thing  from  the  natural 
results  of  an  isolated  tendency  of  the  reason. 

2.  With  just  as  little  right  can  the  will  be  regarded  as  the  birthplace  and 
organ  of  religion.     That  the  latter  should  consist  specially  in  willing  and 
acting  is  a  thesis  which  is  strongly  supported,  specially  by  the  Romish 
Church,  and  among  philosophers  by  Kant.     In  fact,  religion  is  as  much 
concerned  with  the  will  as  with  the  understanding ;    Nemo  credit  nisi  vokns 
is  a  saying  of  deep  meaning.     The  connexion  between  religion  and  mo- 
rality is  close,  even  in  the  statements  of  the  Bible,6  but — and  this  is  the 
dark  side  of  the  said  theory — the  distinction  between  the  two  is  liable  in 
this  way  to  be  completely  forgotten.     A  man  may  have  deep   religious 
feelings  without  those  feelings  leading  to  any  moral  activity ;  even  further, 
many  an  act  may  be  morally  wrong  and  abominable,  and  yet  the  expres- 
sion of  a  degenerate  religious  feeling  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  many  an 
action  will  exhibit  a  moral  character,  though  it  is  entirely  void  of  a  religious 
disposition.     The  moral  man  will  do  what  is  good ;   the  religious  man, 
besides,  will  receive  something  from  the  All-good.     Religion  gives  rise  to 
worship,  and  morality  to  practice.    In  the  first  the  feeling  of  dependence 
is  revealed ;  in  the  other  the  voice  of  free  self-determination.     A  separation 
of  religion  and  morality  seems,  after  all,  impossible ;  and  the  well-known 
expression,  "  It  is  no  matter  what  a  man's  belief  is,  if  he  only  lives  well," 
is  the  utterance  of  the  veriest  superficiality.     As  long,  however,  as  the 
distinction  still  exists,  one  must   scruple  to  look  for  the  seat  of  religion 
exclusively  or  chiefly  in  the  will  of  man. 

3.  "Godliness,  considered   by  itself  in  the  abstract,  is  neither  know- 
edge  nor  act,  but  a  determination  of  the  feeling,  or  of  the  immediate 

1  2  Cor.  iv.  1 6. 

*  James  ii.  19. 

*  Acts  xvii.  1 8  ;  xxvi.  24. 

4  Luke  x.  21 ;  I  Cor.  i.  18;  2  Cor.  x.  4;  comp.  Isa.  xlvii.  7— IO. 
'  Matt.  vii.  21  ;  James  i.  27. 


ITS   SEAT.  83 

self-consciousness."  It  is  with  this  thesis  that  Schleiermacher  came  out  to 
prove  that  religion  was  something  more  than  a  "  mixture  of  metaphysical 
and  moral  crumbs."  Yet,  though  we  praise  what  is  commendable  in  this 
proposition,  we  must  not  overlook  its  one-sidedness  and  incompleteness. 
Not  to  speak  of  the  obscurity  of  the  expression,  or  of  the  important  difference 
in  the  manner  in  which  it  was  formulated  in  his  earlier  and  later  times  by  the 
renowned  theologian,  it  is  at  once  seen  that  feeling,  thus  sharply  separated 
from  knowledge  and  action,  is  in  man  the  lowest,  and  not  the  highest 
quality,  which  he  has  in  common  with  many  animals.  From  this  feeling  of 
dependence,  moreover,  the  worship  of  a  personal  God,  actually  distinguished 
from  the  "  Universum,"  can  by  no  means  be  explained.  If  man  by  his  feel- 
ing discovered  God  so  immediately,  as  those  who  hold  this  view  assert,  it  is 
inconceivable  that  a  Sceptic  or  Atheist  could  exist.  In  opposition  to  its  aim, 
this  conclusion  leads  inevitably,  on  the  one  hand,  to  a  religious  fanaticism 
and  arbitrariness  ;  on  the  other,  to  an  irreconcilable  separation  between  faith 
and  knowledge,  by  which,  at  best,  man  continues  "  at  heart  a  Christian, 
in  his  reason  a  heathen."  So  at  last  religion  becomes  a  beautiful  poetic 
fancy;  and  the  denial  of  God,  on  the  other  hand,  the  formal  result  of 
science. 

4.  But  thus,  after  all,  we  might  possibly  discover  in  conscience,  regarded 
by  itself,  what  we  have  hitherto  looked  for  in  vain  in  man's  reason,  feeling, 
and  will !     After  the  remarks  which  have  already  (§   10)  been  made  re- 
specting Consciencialism,  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  justify  our  doubts  on 
this  point  by  many  grounds.     It  is  evident  that  the  first  and  most  natural 
manifestations  of  religious  life  cannot  possibly  be  explained  as  the  revelation 
and  operation  of  the  conscience  only.     "  Conscience,  as  such,  does  not  give 
utterance  to  love,  gratitude,  prayer,  and  praise ;  and,  on  this  account,  it 
cannot  be  the  organ  of  religion,  any  more  than  reason,  which  here  equally 
fails  "     (Hagenbach).     Hence  we  observe  that,  in  fallen  man,  conscience 
is  at  the  same  time  a  consciousness  of  guilt,  which  will  separate  him  much 
more  from  God  than  it  will  drive  him  to  Him.     It  is  just  the  conscience 
which  makes  the  sinner  tremble  before  Him,  to   whom  the  heart  is  un- 
ceasingly attracted.     Besides,  all  religion  is,  from  its  nature,  social  and 
attractive ;  conscience,  on  the  other  hand,  isolates  us  from  others,  just  as 
the  understanding  does,  because  it  individualizes  us  as  much  as  possible. 
So  it  may  tell  us  of  an  obligation  towards  religion,  but  it  does  not  call 
religion  itself  into  existence,  either  in  the  individual  or  in  the  community. 
Truth  looks  tor,  and  finds,  a  point  of  union  in  the  conscience;6  but  religion, 
Felan  de  rdtne  vers  Dieu,  cannot  possibly  be  conceived  as  the  mere  product 
of  conscience. 

5.  We  are  thus  from  every  side  driven  back  into  the  inmost  sanctuary, 
where  that  which  we  separate  in  our  representation  lies  still  unseparated, 
and  which  we  can  only  call  conscience  when  this  word  is  used  in  that  more 
extended  sense  in  which  it  was  declared,  e.g.,  of  Vinet,  "  II  designa  par  ce 
mot  de  conscience,   1'ensemble  de  sentiments,   de  besoins  et  d'idees  qui 
constituent  chez  rhomme  sa  nature  superieure  "    (Astie').  We  would  rather 


•  2  Cor.  iv.  2 ;  v.  II. 

G  2 


84  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

call  that  ensemble  heart,  while  we  accept  the  confession  pectus  est  quod 
religiosumfacit.  That  heart,  by  no  means  the  same  as  feeling  and  conscience, 
—the  heart,  in  which  the  issues  of  life  are  found,  and  in  which  con- 
science is  written  as  the  law  of  God, — is  the  germ  and  core  of  the  entire 
personality;  the  holy  hearth  from  which  the  sparks  spread  in  all 
directions,  as  also  the  cradle  of  the  religious  life  of  mankind.  This  already 
appears  from  the  fact  that,  in  general,  that  man  is  the  most  religious  in  whom 
the  secret  life  of  the  soul  is  most  powerfully  developed.  The  soul  urges  to 
gratitude,  prayer,  love,— in  a  word,  to  everything  which  makes  and  marks 
out  religion ;  for  not  to  think  of  God,  not  to  will,  nor  to  feel,  but  to  have 
God,  because  man  is  innerly  united  with  Him — that  is  the  cardinal  point. 
The  greatest  thoughts  do  not  spring  from  the  understanding,  but  enter  into  it 
from  the  heart  of  man  ;  "  The  heart  is  the  bud  of  the  head  " 7  (Jean  Paul). 
So  also  the  pressure  towards  God,  whose  name  is  stamped  deeply  and  in- 
effaceably  in  the  conscience,  but  whose  face  none  would  look  for,  if  the 
heart  could  live  without  His  communion.  "  My  son,  give  me  thine  heart," 8 
is  therefore  the  highest,  and  at  the  same  time  the  deepest,  word  of  supreme 
wisdom.  With  its  voice  in  Holy  Scripture  our  definition  agrees,  as  we  see, 
if  we  call  to  mind  the  words  of  Moses  in  Deut.  xxx.  6,  and  specially  those 
of  Jesus,  Matt.  xxii.  37 — 40.  Very  remarkable,  too,  in  this  light,  is  the 
language  of  the  Old  Testament,  where  it  speaks  of  the  bending  of  the  heart 
to  the  Lord,  and  after  strange  gods ;  the  one  the  natural  tendency,  the 
other  the  sad  deflection,  to  be  explained  by  sin,  but  yet  in  the  highest  sense 
unnatural.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  remind  the  reader  that  that  which 
is  seated  in  the  heart  must  and  will  work  with  power  on  the  reason,  feeling, 
and  will ;  must  and  will  of  course  penetrate  the  entire  man,  and  exhibit 
itself  in  his  life.  But  that  which  reveals  itself  in  this  way  has  only  value 
and  import  in  so  far  as  it  is  the  expression  of  the  sincere  religion  of  the 
heart. 

6.  The  heart,  the  seat  of  religion  !  Therein  lies  the  secret  of  its  power ;  for 
that  which  is  the  most  deeply  seated,  and  from  thence  embraces  and  pene- 
trates the  whole  life,  of  course  exercises  the  most  powerful  influence. 
Consciously  or  unconsciously  the  religious  question  lies  at  the  bottom 
of  every  question ;  for  really  "  the  conflict  between  belief  and  unbelief 
is  the  deepest,  the  sole  problem  of  the  history  of  the  world  "  (Goethe). — 
Here,  then,  we  find  the  reason  for  that  conflict  which  has  been  caused 
in  the  heart  and  the  world  by  religion,  more  than  by  any  other 
thing.  Religious  hate  is  the  bloodiest  and  deepest  of  all,  and  no 
wonder,  since  no  other  discord  seizes  thus  directly  and  powerfully  on  the 
most  hidden  principles  of  life ;  man  only  struggles  thus  for  that  which  is 
the  very  highest  life  of  the  soul. — Here,  lastly,  is  the  warrant  for  the 
duration  of  religion,  and  its  future  triumph.  The  religious  principle  cannot 
possibly  be  entirely  blotted  out  of  the  heart  of  mankind ;  for  if  so,  man 
would  lose  that  which  distinguishes  him  from  other  creatures.  The  heart  is 
as  it  were  the  palimpsest,  on  which  the  older  letters,  however  pale  and 
effaced,  will  come  to  light  again  when  it  has  been  properly  handled.  The 

7  Les  grandes  pens6es  viennent  du  cceur. — PASCAL. 
•  Prov.  xxiii.  26. 


ITS   FINAL   OBJECT.  8$ 

"pious  sigh"  of  the  reviving  Atheism,  "The  world  would  have  been  happier 
if  it  had  never  known  of  God,"  is  not  merely  blasphemous,  but  thoroughly 
unnatural.  Naturam  expellas  furcd,  tamen  usque  recurret.  If,  in  the  conflict 
of  the  present  century,  Religion  were  to  be  finally  defeated,  superstition 
would  always  have  at  least  one  chance  of  life  more  than  an  unbridled 
unbelief.  Take  away  from  man  his  God,  and  he  will  not  rest  until  you 
have  given  him  a  godhead  back  again — it  may  be  in  the  form  of  an  idol. 

7.  The  result  thus  gained  has  a  very  varied  importance.  It  is  of  im- 
portance for  Psedagogics.  The  religious  feeling  cannot  be  instilled,  but  must 
be  called  out  as  much  as  possible.  The  want  of  it  generally  arises  from 
this,  that  while  the  brain  suffers  from  hypertrophy,  the  life  of  the  heart  is 
not  sufficiently  developed. — Of  importance  for  Apologetics.  Religion  cannot 
be  proved  to  demonstration,  nor  be  recommended  by  mere  intellectual 
motives.  "  The  heart  has  its  reasons  which  reason  does  not  know " 
(Vinet). — Of  importance  for  Dogmatics.  It  will  be  treated  in  a  thoroughly 
different  manner,  just  as  the  question  as  to  the  seat  of  religion  is  differently 
answered.  A  faulty  psychology  will  be  injurious  to  the  whole  of  theology. 
On  the  contrary,  the  deeper  we  dig  into  the  domain  of  the  inner  life,  the 
more  certainly  we  attain  the  spot  where  we  cannot  touch  religion  without 
wounding  the  tenderest  susceptibilities.  "  In  a  certain  sense  the  expres- 
sion, consciousness,  soul,  etc.,  avails  for  an  allowed,  though  only  provisional, 
escape  from  the  conflict "  (Nitzsch).  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  ever  more 
and  more  seen  that  that  which  is  the  finest  and  deepest  can  never  be 
anatomized  and  sounded.  It  is  therefore  doubly  necessary  to  see  that, 
while  we  continue  our  investigations  into  the  essence  and  seat  of  religion, 
we  never  lose  sight  of  its  final  object. 

Comp.  ELWERT,  Ueber  das  Wesen  der  Religion  in  the  Tubing.  Zeitschrift  for  1835  :  E. 
ZELLER  on  the  same  subject  in  the  Theol.  Jahrb.,  1845,  i. ;  J.  T.  BECK,  Bibl.  Sedcnkhre, 
2  Aufl.,  p.  64  (1862)  ;  AUBERLEN,  Die  Gottl.  Offenb.  ii.,  pp.  25 — 61  (1864)  ;  H.  O. 
PFLEIPERER,  Moral  und  Religion  nach  ihren  gegenseitigen  Verhaltniss  u.  s.  w.  ;  Works  of 
the  Teyler.  Godgd.  Genoolsch.  (1871). 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Criticism  of  the  Materialistic  explanation  of  Religion. —  Historical  survey  of  the 
different  theories  concerning  the  seat  of  Religion.— Strength  and  weakness  of  the  theories 
oi  Schleiermacher  and  Schenkel. — The  heart,  in  its  relation  to  feeling,  understanding,  will, 
conscience. — Construction  of  the  biblical  proof  of  our  proposition. — Maintenance  of  its 
practical  importance. 


SECTION   XXIV. — ITS  FINAL  OBJECT. 

Every  manifestation  of  the  Religious  Sense  is  either  consciously 
or  unconsciously  founded  on  a  striving  after  an  object,  which,  how- 
ever, is  differently  conceived  according  to  different  degrees  of 


86  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

development.  The  object  at  which  the  truly  religious  man  of 
God  aims  can  be  as  little  to  render  God  a  service  in  the  literal 
sense  of  the  word,  as  merely  to  seek  in  communion  with  Him 
profit  and  enjoyment  to  himself.  The  final  object  of  this  com- 
munion with  God  is  personal  union  with  Him,  whereby  He  is 
glorified,  and  the  heart  of  man  is  completely  satisfied.  This  object, 
however,  is  only  really  attainable  in  connection  with  a  Theistic 
conception  of  God. 

1.  Although  the  thirst  after  God  in  man  may  be  called  natural,  and  in  so 
far  involuntary,  yet  all  religious  life  and  effort  is  directed  to  the  gaining  of 
a  certain  end.    Each  religion  exhibits  in  its  degree  a  teleological  and  elpistic 
character,  to  which  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that  we  should  pay  attention 
if  we  would  obtain  a  proper  estimation  of  our  subject.     Since,  however, 
there  is  so  great  variety  of  religious  presentment  and  development,  it  is 
not  possible  that  this  object  should  be  the  same  in  every  case. 

2.  Their  standpoint   is    lowest,  who   consider  religion   as   the   means, 
of,  literally,  doing  service  to  God.     This  view,  which  belongs  to  the  rudest 
form  of  heathendom,  has  been  combated  by  some  excellent  thinkers  before 
the  time  of  Moses  or  of  Christ.    It  was  refuted  with  power  by  the  poets  and 
prophets  of  Israel,1  and  was  rejected  with  indignation  in  the  New  Testament 
by  St.  Paul,  as  well  as  others.     It  is  in  direct  conflict  with  every  better, 
every  purer  idea  of  God's  majesty  and  independence,2  and  cannot  maintain 
its  position  for  a  moment,  except,  perhaps,  before  the  tribunal  of  a  specula- 
tive philosophy,  which  only  acknowledges  a  not  really  existing  Godhead,, 
coming  into  being  and  full  consciousness  only  in  the  human  soul. 

3.  Without  doubt,  their  attempt  is  somewhat  more  reasonable,  who  try 
to   benefit  themselves  by  their   religion.     Though  the  selfishness  which 
suggests  this  view  be  a  principle8  as  well  known  as  it  is  impure,  it  is  yet 
conceivable,  and  more  worthy  of  respect,  since  it  welds  itself  to   religion 
with  the  object  of  drawing  from  it  a  treasure  of  light  and  power,  of  comfort 
and  hope.     It  is  an  exaggerated  demand  that  men  ought  to  be  religious 
without  in  a  certain  degree  giving  heed  to  the  reward  both  for  oneself  and 
for  others  attached  to  a  sincere  devotion.     The  doctrine  of  the  so-called 
pure  love  (Fe'nelon)  rests  on  exaggeration  and  misunderstanding.      That 
which  cannot  be  a  principle  may  still  always  serve  as  a  stimulus.     Yet  the 
final  object  of  real  worship  cannot  possibly  be  placed  in  anything  but  in 
God  Himself.     As  religion,  in  its  deepest  ground,  is  from  God,  so  does  it 
reach  also  to  God.    By  communion  with  God  it  aims  at  the  closest  possible 
union  with  Him,  by  which  He  is  glorified,  and  the  heart  which  cannot  rest 
in  any  finite  thing  is  completely  satisfied.     If  religion,  properly  considered, 
is  nothing  but  the  impulse  of  life  and  love,  the  love  remains  unsatisfied  so 


1  Ps.  1.  10—12;  li.  16,  17  ;  Isa.  i.  11— 18;  Job  xxii.  3;  Acts  xvii.  24. 

2  I  i'im.  vi.  13. 

*  Job  i.  9 ;  i  Tim.  vi.  6. 


ITS  FINAL  OBJECT.  87 

long  as  it  remains  in  any  degree  separated  from  the  object  which  is  loved 
more  than  aught  else. 

4.  Meanwhile  we  must  above  all  take  care  that  while  we  strive  towards 
the  summit  we  may  avoid  a  dangerous  precipice.     Every  sound  manifesta- 
tion of  religious  life  seeks  personal  union  with  God,  i.e.,  one  in  which  our 
individuality  is  not  lost  in  the  contemplation  of  God,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
is   preserved,  emancipated,  and  purified.     It  sounds  very  poetical  to  talk, 
as  is  often  done,  of  being  absorbed  and  lost  in  God's  communion,  but  taken 
literally,  these  expressions  have  rather  an  sesthetical  than  an  ethical  and 
philosophical  value.     Communion  is  only  conceivable  when  the  individual 
life  of  those  between  whom  it  is  held  is  retained,  and  so  personality  ought 
not  to  be  considered  as  a  hindrance,  but,  on  the  contrary,  as  the  sine  qua  non 
of  the  highest  of  all  religious  life.     The  warmest  love,  even,  will  only  lose 
itself  in  the  loved  object,  to  find  itself  soon  again  in  that  beloved  object;  the 
contrary  would  be  the  death  of  love,  which  (Plato)  is  nothing  less  than  the 
striving  after  immortality.      The  religious  man  is  in  relation  to  God,  not 
as  the  dewdrop,  which  is  dried  up  by  the  sun,  but  as  the  sunflower,  which  turns 
towards  and  opens  itself  before  its  light.    This,  indeed,  is  the  glory  of  God, 
that  He  demands  the  sacrifice  of  our  heart,  but  not  of  our  individuality, 
and  only  accepts  the  first  in  order  to  give  it  back  again,  at  rest  and  purified. 
Inasmuch,  however,  as  this  object  is  only  imperfectly  attained  here  below, 
is  life  in  communion  with  God  (we  shall  return  again  to  this  point)  the 
pledge  of  an  eternal  future  in  which  He  will  be  all  indeed,  but  in  all,  i.e., 
without  destroying  their  personal  life. 

5.  Although  we  may,  whilst  starting  from  a  very  different  conception  of 
God,  be  striving  after  the  same  object,  this  by  no  means  will  be  attained 
from  every  standpoint.     Where  a  deistic  conception  of  God  is  professed,  we 
cannot  properly  and  seriously  speak  of  a  constant  communion  with  God. 
God  is  here  not  only  merely  raised  too  far  above  the  creature,  but  is 
separated  too  far  from  him.     As  little  is  real  religion  conceivable  where 
pantheistic  principles  are  professed,  because  there  the  personal  distinction 
between  Creator  and  creature  is  done  away.     Only  where,  from  a  theistic 
standpoint  (which  we  shall  hereafter  advocate),  we  do  justice  alike  to  the  im- 
manence and  transcendence  of  God,  can  the  highest  object  of  Religion  be 
sufficiently  accurately  defined  and  properly  realized.    While  this  observation 
is  itself  true,  it  likewise  offers  a  measure  by  which  to  determine  the  unequal 
value  of  the  different  forms  of  Religion. 

Comp.  VON  SCHUBERT,  Gesch.  d.  Stele,  3  Aufl.  (1832),  §§  i  and  67  ;  DE  WETTE, 
Ueber  Religion^  u.  s.  w.  (1817),  p.  61,  syy.,  and  the  article  Eudamonisme  in  Herzog's  R.  £. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

The  different  definitions  and  judgments  as  to  the  objects  of  religion  at  different  times. 
— Is  it  possible  to  be  religious  from  selfish  motives? — Something  as  to  the  amour  pur  of 
Fenelon. — How  does  Religion  work  to  the  glory  of  God,  and  in  what  connexion  does  it 
stand  with  our  personal  happiness? — Peculiarity  and  value  of  the  Pantheistic  conception 
of  God. — Is  it  then  impossible  on  Deistic  or  Pantheistic  principles  to  be  sincerely 
religious  ? 


88  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 


SECTION  XXV. — ITS  DIVERSITY. 

The  various  forms  in  which  the  religious  life  of  mankind  ex- 
presses itself,  and  the  abundance  of  which  renders  a  further  division  of 
Religions  necessary,  point  back  to  one  origin  and  one  need.  Even 
the  most  faulty  form  of  Religion  is  so  far  worthy  of  respect,  whilst 
on  the  other  hand  the  most  excellent  still  always  remains  below 
the  ideal  of  perfect  Religion.  Yet  the  value  of  the  different  forms 
of  Religion  is  by  no  means  the  same ;  and  specially  the  distance 
between  Monotheistic  and  Non-monotheistic  Religions  is  too 
great  to  make  mention  only  of  gradual  differences.  Among 
Monotheistic  religions  Christianity  has  an  excellency,  which 
only  becomes  clearer  when  it  is  impartially  compared  with  other 
Religions. 

1.  Hitherto  we  have  spoken  of  Religion  as   a  whole,  without  paying 
attention  to  its  variety.     In  this  domain,  however,  the  difference  is  equally 
great  with  that  betwen  nations  and  between  men.     An  endless  variety  of 
forms  is  displayed  here,  and   the  history  of  Religion  has  to  occupy  itself 
with  pointing  out  their  origin,  peculiarity,  and  mutual  connexion.    And  yet, 
on  so  extensive  a  field  as  this,  Dogmatics  must,  in  some  degree  at  least, 
consider  what  its  position  is.    It  cannot  possibly  duly  represent  the  essence 
of  Christianity,  as  long  as  it  is  wholly  unacquainted  with  the  character  of 
other  religions. 

2.  The  different  forms  of  religion  have  been  and  are  divided  in  more 
than  one  manner:     A.  With  an  eye  upon  the  subject,  which  practises  the 
religion,  into  general  or  individual,  true  or  false,  external  or  internal  religion. 
B.  Looking  to  the  object  of  worship ;    (a)  as  to  quantity,  into  monotheistic, 
dualistic,  polytheistic,  etc.  ;  (b)  as  to  quality,  into  the  worship  of  a  perfect 
being,  or  of  imperfect  finite  things,     c.  With  an  eye  on  the  source,  into 
natural  and  revealed,  in  the  stricter  sense  of  the  word.     D.  According  to 
the  degree  of  culture  of  the  peoples,  into  religions  of  the  childhood,  youth, 
manhood  of  mankind.    We  might  also  speak  of  other  divisions,  e.g.,  psycho- 
logical and  ethnographical ;   but  completeness  is  here  superfluous,  and  the 
difficulty  in  choosing  a  division  which  will  not  call  forth  a  single  objection,  is 
already  evident   enough.     The  most   acceptable   division,  which   is  also 
sufficient  for  our  purpose,  is  that  into  Monotheistic  and  Non-monotheistic 
religions,  which  will  separately  claim  our  attention. 

3.  At  once  the  question  meets  us  here,  which  of  these  two  is  the  older  ? 
In  other  words,  does  this  history  of  religion  begin  from  above  or  from 
below?   Is  Polytheism  a  degenerate  Monotheism?  or  has  mankind,  on  the 
contrary,  raised  itself  slowly  from  the  lower  standpoint  to  the  higher? 
This  question  must  be  discussed  here,  since  the  answer  mnst  greatly  in- 


ITS  DIVERSITY.  89 

fluence  our  decision  on  the  value  of  religions.      That   answer  is   more 
difficult,  because  it  is  often  even  involuntarily  governed  by  certain  premises. 
If  it  is  asserted,  with  the  supporters  of  the  development  hypothesis,  that 
man  is  the  merely  natural  product  of  the  lower  kinds  of  animals,  sprung  on 
their  part  from  inorganic  materials,  we  shall  probably  also  assume  that  he 
very  slowly  ascended  to  an  obscure  conception,  first  of  many,  then  of  one 
higher   Being.     If,  on  the  contrary,  we  place  God  at  the  beginning  of 
history,  and  consider  man  as  a  new  link  in  the  chain  of  finite  beings,  we 
shall  inevitably  incline  to  the  opposite  view.     In  fact,  much  more  can 
be  said  in  favour  of  the  latter  than  of  the  former  view.     It  is,  indeed,  much 
more  conceivable  that  mankind  declined  from  Monotheism  to  Polytheism, 
than  the  converse.    The  first  is  a  decay,  for  which  we  can  find  many  analo- 
gies ;  the  other  would  be  a  development,  of  which  we  cannot  find  a  second 
example.     The  cradle  of  Polytheism  is  not  discovered  ;  if  we  do  not  con- 
ceive of  it  as  a  decline  from  a  former  better  way,- — in  other  words,  as  a 
degeneration  from  Monotheism, — its  fundamental  basis  is  yet  unexplained. 
It  must  also  be  observed  that  polytheism  generally  tends,  not  to  the  better, 
but  to  the  worse ;  in   other  words,   that  it  is  continually  increasing  the 
number  of  its  gods,  not  decreasing  them  ;   which  ever-growing  numbers 
constantly   lead   to  more   divisions,   in  which,  however,  something  of  a 
monotheistic   background   may  here  and  there  be  observed.      In  many 
polytheistic  forms  of  religion  we  often  seem  to  meet  with  broken  rays  of  a 
previously  undivided  and  originally  purer  light,  and  we  often  discover 
among  the  older  nations  purer  ideas  on  this  subject  than  in  a  younger  race. 
"  It  is  indeed  striking,  that  the  most  ancient  nations,  which  in  other  things 
were  quite  uncultivated,  had  very  true  representations  and  knowledge  of 
God,  of  the  world,  of  immortality ;  whilst  the  arts,  which  concern  the  con- 
veniences of  life,  are  much  younger.     In  matters  of  the  highest  import  the 
men  of  the  most  ancient  times  had  right  ideas,  while  in  the  business  of  life 
they  were  children  "    (Joh.  v.  Muller).    "  Antiquitas,  quo  propius  aberat  ab 
ortu,  eo  melius  fortasse  quae  erant  vera  cernebat  "    (Cicero).    The  striking 
phenomenon,  that  it  is  in  the  highest  sphere  of  thought  that  the  earlier 
ideas   were  so  much  purer  than  the  later,  ceases  to  be  quite  inexplicable 
when  we  regard  Monotheism — and  to  this  conclusion,  for  other  reasons 
too,  we  must  come  (as  will  be  shown  hereafter) — as  the  fruit  of  an  original 
revelation.     While  accepting  this,  we  must  also  allow  that  it  is  not  the 
error,  but  the  truth,  which  was  afterwards  forgotten,  which  has  been  the 
basis  of  the  oldest  form  of  religion,  and  that  Monotheism  originally  revealed, 
disappeared  almost   immediately,   and   was   afterwards   raised   to   higher 
honour  in  consequence  of  a  renewed  revelation. 

4.  If  from  this  standpoint  we  cast  our  glance  over  the  most  distin- 
guished forms  of  religion,  we  may  collect  the  Non-monotheistic  forms  under 
the  general  name  of  Heathendom,  and  understand  this  latter  as  a  deterioration 
of  a  better  principle,  as  a  descent  from  a  previous  height.  This  view  had 
been  taken,  not  only  by  the  prophets  of  Israel,  but  by  St.  Paul  in 
Rom.  i.  18;  ii.  14,  15.  "  Heathendom  is  in  general  to  be  regarded  as  a 
falling  away  and  debasing  of  true  religion  "  (Lange).  It  has  thus  a  basis 
which  is  decidedly  immoral ;  it  is  an  error,  brought  into  existence  by  the 
power  of  sin,  which,  on  its  part,  leads  on  to  other  sins.  It  is,  as  St.  Paul  has 


go  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

already  shown,1  in  its  inmost  essence  a  deification  of  nature,  by  which  the 
border-line  between  sensual  and  spiritual  is  of  itself  done  away,  and  even 
the  most  unbridled  emancipation  of  the  flesh  receives  the  consecration  of 
religion.  It  is  not  easy  to  come  to  a  properly  fair  decision  upon  Heathendom, 
considered  as  a  moral  and  religious  phenomenon.  At  all  times  there  has 
been  a  wavering  in  thought  between  a  pessimistic  and  an  optimistic  tendency. 
As  a  type  of  the  first  we  might  mention  the  Splendida  Vitia  of  Augustine, 
while  the  Die  Cotter  Griechenlands  of  Schiller  may  be  considered  as  the 
interpreter  of  the  other.  Besides,  a  judgment  cannot  easily  be  made 
without  further  distinction,  since  Heathendom,  like  the  Corinthian  copper  of 
olden  time,  was  made  up  of  very  different  elements.  In  general,  while  we 
are  estimating  these  wildwachsende  Religionen  (Schelling),  we  must  never 
forget  that  even  where  God  suffered  the  heathen  to  walk  in  their  own  ways, 
the  Logos  was  already,  before  His  incarnation,  the  light  and  life  of  men.2 
Fetichism  without  doubt  occupies  the  lowest  place  of  all  these  forms  of 
religion  ;  somewhat  higher  is  the  more  organised  worship  of  fire  and  light, 
as  the  fundamental  force  which  penetrates  everything  (Astrolatry  or 
Sabianism,  Fire-worship).  Above  which,  again,  the  Egyptian's  worship  of 
animal  life  (Zoolatry)  is  raised.  The  deification  of  man  in  all  its  forms 
(Anthropolatry)  reaches  the  very  summit  of  Apotheosis  in  the  gods  of 
Greece,  presented  as  objects  of  regard  and  reverence  under  the  most  beautiful 
human  forms.  If  deified  men  are  still  here  the  objects  of  veneration  (hero- 
worship),  we  see  this  rendered  elsewhere  to  higher  spirits  (Demonolatry), 
which,  regarded  from  a  moral  standpoint,  too  often  deserve  the  name  of 
evil  spirits.  As  in  the  countless  grains  of  broken  crystal  the  image  of  the 
higher  power  is  reflected  for  us  in  the  ever-increasing  number  of  gods 
(Polytheism).  Lastly,  everything  becomes  God  ;  Pantheism  steps  forth  as 
a  settled  religious  system,  that  even  in  these  days  finds  an  effective,  though 
variously  diversified,  expression  in  the  two  chief  forms  of  Indian  Mythology. 
First,  in  the  religion  of  the  Parsees,  does  Dualism  show  itself  in  an  actually 
ethical  character,  while  in  the  background  the  belief  in  an  Almighty  God  is 
most  undoubtedly  declared.  Elsewhere,  too,  in  Heathendom  we  meet 
with  traces  of  a  Monotheistic  view.  (The  Orphic  wisdom,  Anaxagoras, 
Xenophanes,  Plato,  etc.),  although  we  rise  here  at  best  to  the  idea  of  a 
powerful  demiurge,  not  to  the  conception  of  an  absolutely  perfect  Creator 
of  the  world.  But  even  where  the  numerical  unity  of  the  highest  Being  is 
confessed  by  some,  it  is  done  in  a  manner  far  above  the  reach  of  most ;  and 
even  while  we  observe  with  interest  the  most  astonishing  aspirations  towards 
a  higher  light,  we  nowhere  find  Heathenism  completely  escape  the  danger 
of  a  deification  of  nature.  Whither  human  wisdom,  when  left  to  itself,  can 
attain  in  this  domain,  we  see  in  a  striking  manner  in  Buddhism,  the  most 
tragic  form  of  religion  ;  but  even  where  the  precipice  of  misery  is  veiled 
from  our  gaze  by  countless  flowers,  we  cannot  grant  to  Heathendom, 
viewed  as  a  whole,  any  higher  name  than  that  of  the  religion  of  helpless 
despair. 

5.  We  meet  with  a  more  pleasing  view  when  we  look  at  the  Monotheistic 


1  Rom.  i.  24  sqq.  *  Acts  xiv.  17  ;  John  L  4. 


ITS  DIVERSITY.  91 

forms  of  religion,  and  first  of  all  regard  that  of  the  Israelites.  Here  \ve  see 
the  Divine  and  the  human,  not  confounded,  but  sharply  distinguished  in 
Hebraism,  while  even  in  Judaism  they  were  not  seldom  separated  from 
one  another.  In  the  Patriarchal  period  the  power  of  God  is  put  in  the 
foreground ;  in  the  Mosaic,  His  holiness ;  in  the  Prophetic,  the  mercy  and 
truth  of  God  as  contrasted  with  His  justice.  But  all  these  periods  have 
this  in  common,  that  not  only  was  the  unity  of  God  confessed  against  the 
number  of  false  gods,  but  God  also  was  conceived  of  as  the  living  God, 
in  immediate  and  constant  relation  with  His  people.  Religion  and 
morality,  in  Heathenism  oftentimes  distinctly  placed  in  contrast,  are 
here  most  closely  united ;  every  relation  of  life  is  ruled  by  a  higher  law, 
and,  where  that  law  fills  the  sinner  with  consternation  and  fear,  prophecy 
unfolds  the  view  of  a  golden  age  of  deliverance.  The  place  which  is 
occupied  by  the  Mosaic  religion,  not  only  as  contrasted  with,  but  also  as 
raised  tar  above,  all  heathen  religions,  is  quite  unique.  "  Its  basis  is 
special  revelation,  its  character  monotheistic,  its  form  theocratic,  its  public 
worship  typico-symbolic,  its  tendency  purely  moral,  its  standpoint  one  of 
external  authority,  and  at  the  same  time  one  of  conscious  preparation  for  a 
higher  development"  (J.  J.  van  Oosterzee).  Every  renewed  investigation 
which  is  not  guided  by  naturalistic  principles,  proves  the  impossibility  of 
considering  this  religion  as  a  merely  natural  fruit  of  the  tree  of  humanity. 
The  glancing  lights  of  Mosaism  are  only  explicable  by  the  fact  of  a  special 
revelation ;  whilst  its  shadows — as,  e.g.,  its  sternly  limited  character,  and  the 
absence  of  very  important  doctrines,  such  as  Eschatology — find  their  solu- 
tion in  the  poedagogic  and  preparatory  character  of  the  entire  dispensation. 
All  Israel,  like  Daniel  the  prophet,  is  a  vir  desideriorum,  and  its  religion  is 
that  of  a  growing  expectation  of  salvation  founded  on  the  revelation  of  old. 

6.  That  expectation  is  satisfied  by  Christianity,  which  in  fact  reveals, 
announces,  and  establishes  a  real  union  between  God  and  man,  which 
Heathenism  was  merely  seeking,  and  Judaism  waiting  for.     God  and  man 
are  no  longer  confounded  in  thought,  nor  only  distinguished ;  they  are  truly 
reunited.     In  Heathenism  we  see  humanity  deified  ;  here,  on  the  contrary, 
the  Divine  becomes  man.     In  consequence  of  a  supranatural  (when  we 
look  at  it  from  a  human  standpoint)  act  of  Divine  love,  a  moral  communion 
is  established,  and  the  spiritual  union  of  fallen  man  with  his   Maker  is 
restored.     Heathenism  places  man  in  a  purely  natural  relation  to  God, 
Judaism  in  a  strictly  legal  one,  while  Christianity  represents  it  as  a  childlike 
spiritual  relaiion,   because  God  Himself  fulfils   His   promise.3     It  is  not 
merely  as  a  new  doctrine,  more  excellent  than  any  other,  but  as  a  new  reve- 
lation of  the  highest  love,  which  for  that  very  reason  is  a  new  principle  of  life, 
that  it  has  astonished  the  world,  and  already  to  a  certain  extent  reformed  it. 
Here  the  Founder  is  at  the  same  time  the  centre  of  his  religion,  which 
proclaims  itself  as  the  fruit  of  a  special  revelation,4  and  hence  is  rightly 
called  the  religion  of  spiritual  satisfaction. 

7.  The  transition  from  Christianity  to  Islamism  cannot  be  anything  but 
a  decline,  though  the  historic  import  of  the  religion  of  Mahomet  is  much 


*  Jer.  xxxi.  31 — 34.  *  I  Cor.  ii.  9;  Heb.  i.  I. 


92  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

greater  than  its  internal  value.  Later  investigation  confirms  much  more 
than  it  contradicts  the  saying  of  Luther,  that  "  Islamism  might  be  called  a 
collection  of  scattered  sentences  from  the  law  and  the  Gospel."  In  any 
case  it  is,  both  theoretically  and  practically,  far  inferior  to  Mosaism  and 
Christianity.  Its  conception  of  God  is  Deistic,  its  revelation  mechanical, 
its  doctrine  of  predestination  fatalistic,  its  religion  itself  fanatical,  its 
morality  eudaemonistic,  and  its  eschatology  grossly  sensual.  Islamism  is 
in  character  oriental,  but  not  catholic  nor  human,  still  less  is  it  purely 
spiritual ;  it  is  a  religion  sprung  from  man,  and  therefore  agreeable  to  man; 
and  it  is  this  peculiarity  which  has  given  it  its  wide  authority  and  tem- 
porary success.  Whatever  merit  it  may  have,  it  owes  more  than  aught 
else  to  its  Christian  elements ;  but  when  compared  with  the  Gospel  itself, 
it  deserves  no  higher  name  than  that  of  a  religion  of  "petted  sensuality." 
8.  The  time  for  the  rise  of  really  new  religions  seems  to  have  departed 
centuries  ago;  whatever  has  been  propounded  in  later  times,  and  even 
in  ours,  (as,  e.g.,  Mormonism)  seems  to  be  merely  a  caricature  of  the 
old.  Hence  the  question  naturally  arises,  whether  we  can  indeed 
discover  a  specific,  or  merely  a  gradual  diversity  between  the  well-known 
forms  ot  religious  life ;  in  other  words,  whether  Christianity — if  its  Divine 
origin  be  once  proved — may  be  called  the  absolutely  true,  or  merely  the 
relatively  most  excellent  religion.  From  the  Supranaturalistic  standpoint 
the  answer  is  easy.  Even  when  we  duly  value  each  higher  aspiration, 
which  is  not  wanting  in  any  one  religion,  there  yet  exists  a  difference,  not 
merely  of  degree,  but  of  kind,  between  that  which  is  the  consequence  of 
special  revelation,  and  that  which  is  not.  This  is  very  plain  when  we 
carefully  compare  the  Monotheistic  and  Non-monotheistic  religions.  The 
latter  are  generally  in  unison,  the  former,  on  the  contrary,  in  conflict  with 
the  natural  bias  of  the  people  by  whom  they  are  professed ;  the  Greek 
mythology,  for  example,  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  its  Hellenistic 
character ;  the  Israelitic  Monotheism,  on  the  contrary,  offers  a  constant 
protest  to  the  slavish,  sensual,  idolatrous  tendency  of  the  nation.  This 
distinction  is  specially  observable  when  we  look  at  Christianity.  In 
contrast  with  all  the  Non-monotheistic  religions,  it  exhibits  a  purely  spiritual 
character ;  it  does  not  bear  the  stamp  of  nationality,  but  of  the  purest 
humanity ;  and  gives  us  an  evidence  of  the  highest  unity  of  religion  and 
morality.  Where  in  other  religions  man  is  petted  and  flattered,  he  is  here 
brought  low  and  humbled,  while  God  alone  receives  the  honour  of  the 
work  of  redemption.  The  idea,  moreover,  of  the  original  preventing  and 
seeking  love  of  God  for  us,  His  enemies,  which  here  lies  at  the  foundation 
both  of  doctrine  and  morality,6  never  sprung  up  in  the  heart  of  man  ;  and 
the  ideal  of  a  kingdom  of  God,  which  embraces  all,  and  overcomes  every- 
thing, has  nowhere  been  so  purely  conceived  or  at  first  so  happily  attained. 
Whatever  value  we  may  put  on  the  germs  of  truth  which  are  present  in 
every  religion,  for  all  these  reasons  we  cannot  deny  that  we  are  here  on  a 
completely  different  ground  from  that  which  the  lower  Non-monotheistic 
religions  present. 


I  John  iv.  19. 


ITS  DEGENEPATION.  93 

9.  If  we  afterwards  sufficiently  prove  what  we  have  here  stated,  we 
hereby  already  and  at  once  define  the  relation  which,  starting  from  a 
Christian  standpoint,  we  must  occupy  to  other  forms  of  religion.  That 
relation  cannot  be  one  of  a  so-called  toleration  which  considers  all  religions 
equally  good,  in  so  far  at  least  as  they  are  honestly  held  ;  still  less  can  it 
be  that  of  a  narrow  Exclusiveness,  which  considers  everything  which  is 
not  directly  Christian  as  utterly  false  and  inadmissible,  and  passes  by  the 
precious  iron  hidden  under  the  thick  coating  of  rust.  But  it  will  be  that 
of  a  thankful  recognition  of  our  own  privileges,  accompanied  with  the 
earnest  endeavour  to  recommend  and  communicate  them  to  others.  The 
acknowledgment  of  the  great  excellence  of  the  Christian  religion  above 
all  others  is,  at  the  same  time,  the  basis  of  Christian  Apologetics,  and  of 
true  theological  Therapeutics.  The  ever-existing  needs  of  this  last  will 
appear  when  we  observe  religious  life  in  its  multifold  degeneration. 

Comp.  PARET,  Ueber  die Eintheilung  der  Religionen,  Stud.  u.  Krit.  (1855),  n-»  P-  2^r>  tff-f 
HOFSTEDE  DE  GROOT,  Instit.  Theol.  Nat,,  4th  ed.  (1861),  p.  214,  sqq.;  THOLUCK,  Der 
Sittliche  Character  des  Heidenthutns  ;  VAN  OOSTERZEE,  Biblical  Theology,  Eng.  Trans., 
§§  4 — 6  ;  G.  R.  NIEMAN,  Inldding  tot  de  Kennis  van  den  Islam  (1861)  ;  and  also  the 
chief  handbooks  of  the  History  of  Religion,  in  whose  constantly  increasing  number  we 
must  not  forget  J.  GARDNER,  The  principal  Religions  of  the  World  ;  C.  HARDWICK, 
Christ  and  other  Masters, 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Which  division  of  religions,  generally  considered,  is  the  best  ? — Further  examination 
of  the  reasons  for  and  against  the  priority  of  Monotheism. — Agreement  and  differences  of 
the  Non-monotheistic  religion. — Mutual  relations  of  Mosaism,  Christianity,  and  Islamism. 
— The  reason  why  no  new  religions  have  arisen  since  Islamism.  — The  fable  of  the  thre«> 
rings  in  Lessing's  Nathan  der  Weis. 


SECTION   XXVI. — ITS   DEGENERATION. 

As  the  history  of  mankind  shows  an  endless  variety  of  forms 
of  Religion,  so  the  history  of  Religion  exhibits  a  boundless  scene 
of  deep  degeneration.  Where  Religion,  which  ought  to  animate 
the  whole  man,  is  exclusively  ruled  by  one  faculty  of  human 
nature,  morbid  symptoms,  in  consequence  of  this  one-sidedness, 
will  inevitably  appear.  These  symptoms  produce  sects,  which  on 
their  side  contain  the  seeds  of  new  diseases.  The  unhindered 
development  of  these  diseases  may  become  so  deadly  to  individual 
and  social  life,  that  Religion  itself  degenerates  at  last  into  God- 
lessness. 


94  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

1.  "  Optimi  corruptio  pessima"  is  nowhere  more  clearly  seen  than  in 
the  domain  of  religion.     As  it  in  itself  may  be  called  the  highest  benefit, 
where   the   religious  principle   harmoniously  penetrates  and  rules  man's 
whole  internal  and  external  life ;  so  what  is  good  in  itself  really  becomes 
death  when   the    spiritual   life   develops   itself  in   a    one-sided    manner. 
Morbid  svmptoms  appear,  at  one  time  of  an  individual,  at  another  of  a 
social  kind,  whose  destructive  effects  can  hardly  be  estimated.     Of  the 
most  dangerous  at  least  we  must  get  a  general  knowledge,  if,  as  Theolo- 
gians,  we  will  fulfil  our  obligation  to  be  God's  pathologists.     They  will 
successively  reveal  themselves  to  our  view,  as  we  observe  Religion  under  the 
preponderating  influence  of  those  powers  and  faculties  of  man,  in  which 
its  seat  has  at  different  times  been  exclusively  sought. 

2.  Where  religion  is  regarded  exclusively  or  principally  as  a  matter  of 
the  understanding,  there  the  tyranny  of  Intellectualism  is  soon  felt.     It  is 
this  tendency  which  over-rates  the  value  of  a  correct  conception  of  faith, 
even  to  the  detriment  of  the  spiritual  life,  and  confounds  the  subjective 
conception    of   truth   with    truth    itself.       This  intellectual   bent    easily 
degenerates  into  an  unhealthy,   gnostic  tendency,  which  attempts  to  grasp 
religious  truth  merely  by  the  reasoning  and  speculating  understanding,  and 
confounds  thought  with  knowledge,  while  the  distinction  between  religion 
and  theology  is  gradually  lost.     Since,  however,  this  system  must  not  only 
be  formulated,  but  also  defended,  the  Intellectualist  is  very  easily  drawn 
into   the   path   of  Doctrinalism,   which   discovers   the  nature  of  religion 
exclusively   in  dogma  as  such.     Doctrinalism  may  exhibit  the   form   of 
Rationalism,  as  well  as   that  of  Supranaturalism.     The  former  considers 
reason  not  merely  as  the  organ,  but  as  the  very  source  and  supreme  arbiter, 
of  religious  truth  ;  the  other  accepts  the  existence  and  the  contents  of  a 
supranatural  revelation,  but  receives  this  rather  as  a  doctrine  announced  by 
supreme  authority.     The  adherent  of  the  last-named  view  easily  becomes  a 
strict  orthodoxist  with  regard  to  the  traditional  confession,  valuing  sound- 
ness of  faith  even  at  the  expense  of  thefaif/i  itself.     From  this  standpoint 
the  intellect  works   only   receptively,    whilst   with  the  rationalist  it  has 
more  a  critical  sway.     Where  the  sovereignty  of  this  partial  tendency  of 
the  intellect  is  not  encountered  by  any  other  forces,  it  may  finally  lead  the 
believer  to  the  precipice  of  unbelief,  the  Protestant  into  the  arms  of  Rome. 

3.  Symptoms    of  disease    not    less    dangerous    are    seen    where    the 
religious  life  is  too  partially  governed  by  feeling.     No  one  will  deny  that  a 
deep  and  holy  Mysticism  is  conceivable  in  the  religious  and  Christian 
domain,  or  even  that  it  is  in  a  certain  sense  inseparable  from  the  spiritual 
life.     Such  a  sound  Mysticism  is  that  of  John,  as  contrasted  with  the  more 
doctrinal  spirit  of  Paul.     Such  was  that  of  Tauler  and  Thomas  a  Kempis. 
"The  internal  life  and  vigour  of  religion  is  always  Mysticism"    (Nitzsch). 
But  from  this  delicate  inner  disposition  we  must  carefully  distinguish  that 
cloudy  and  sickly  Mysticism,  in  which  feeling  and  experience  speak  at  the 
expense  of  reason  and  conscience.     Whilst  the  Intellectualist  maintains 
the  letter,  even  against  the  spirit ;  the  Mystic  places  the  spirit,  such  as  he 
conceives   it,    infinitely  above   the  letter.      His  feeling  decides  what  is 
true  and  untrue,  what  is  Divine  and  human,  and  against  this  judgment 
the  most  close  reasoning  is  useless.     He  easily  slights  the  church  for  the 


ITS  DEGENERATION.  95 

conventicle,  and  the  sacrament  for  secret  prayer.  When  this  over-excited 
feeling  is  joined  with  an  ardent  fancy,  an  unbridled  fanaticism  is  seen,  not  a 
soft,  cherishing  fire,  but  a  wild  destructive  flame.  Propagandism  may  be 
considered  as  one  of  its  relatively  moderate  forms,  types  of  which  are 
pointed  out  in  Matt,  xxiii.  15.  But  the  more  audacious  Zelotism  is  also  a 
fruit  of  this  soil ;  a  disease,  whose  victims  are  pointed  out  in  Rom.  x.  2 
and  John  xvi.  2  ;  and  at  the  end  of  this  gloomy  road,  when  it  is  followed 
to  the  end  without  interruption,  in  the  dusky  distance  appear — the  flames 
of  the  auto  dafes. 

4.  Though  we  are  preserved  from  these  dangers,  where  the  religious  life 
is  considered  by  preference  as  a  matter  of  the  will,  we  shall  then  the  sooner 
suffer  shipwreck  on  the  rock  of  another  peril.     Here  threatens  that  of  that 
Mora/ism  or  Legalistn,  which  looks  rather  at  the  external  form  than  at  the 
essential  principle  of  life  ;  in  other  words,  which  values  the  fruit  of  faith  at 
the  expense  of  the  root.     From  this  point  of  view,  but  little  importance  is 
conceded  to  the  religious  conception  or  feeling,  but  all  the  more  to  the 
action.     It  is  not  Paul,  or  still  less  John,  but  James,  who,  though  wholly 
misunderstood,  is  by  preference  taken  as  a  guide.     He  who,  continuing  in 
this  path,  does  not  decline  into  a  formal  Pharisaism,  will  very  quickly  find 
himself  on  the  track  of  a  narrow  Pietism.     This  appellation,  though  often 
used  unfairly,  is  yet  the  best  description  of  the  tendency  which  suffers  itself 
to  be  guided  by  the  spirit  of  a  legal  force,  rather  than  by  that  of  evangelical 
freedom,  and  confounds  the  means  of  godliness  with  godliness  itself.     It 
may  be  known,  amidst  other   symptoms,  by  a  methodistical   uniformity, 
which  prescribes  the  same  way   of  regeneration  for  all,  and  by  a  timid 
horror  of  the  world,  which   shuns    even  all  allowed  enjoyment,  such  as 
those  of  nature  or  art.      "Touch    not,  taste   not,  handle  not,"1   is  its 
motto,  and  at  the  end  of  this  road    stands  the  door  of  the  cloister. 

5.  Closely  allied  to  these  last  are  the  morbid  symptoms  exhibited  under 
the  influence  of  an  awakened  conscience.  We  think  here  of  Asceticism,  allied  to 
Pietism,  but  not  therefore  homogeneous  to  it.    However  excellent  a  suitable 
Asceticism2  may  be,  when  directed  by  the  awe  of  conscience,  it  will  very  soon 
acquire  the  character  of  arbitrariness  and  hypocrisy.     The  entire  theory  of 
"  thesaurus  supererogationis  "   has    been   developed   under  its   influence. 
Whence,  indeed,  does  all  superstition    spring,  if  it  be  not  from  the  desire 
to  still  the  restlessness  of  conscience  by  a  self-chosen  method  ?     There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  such  a  painful   fear  inevitably   excludes  love,  and  thus 
destroys  the  principle  of  all  religion  ;3  but  it  is  moreover  evident  that  Con- 
sciencialism,  in  the  domain  of  Religion,  leads  more  than  any  other  school  of 
thought  to  Individualism.      What  is  there  which  is  announced  as  truth,   or 
condemned  as  sin,  by  the  conscience  of  absolutely  all  ?     Thus  isolation 
takes  the  place  of  communion,  and  never  is  man  further  removed  than 
there  from  the  ideal  of  a  cheerful  worship  of  God. 

6.  Every  disease  in  the  religious  realm  is  infectious:  thus  the  sect  naturally 
springs  from  the  morbid  symptoms  in  the  individual.    Sect  (derived  from  the 
Latin  scquor  or  sec/art,  and  not  from  secare)  is  the  translation  of  the  Greek 


1  Col.  ii.  21.  '  I  Tim.  iv.  7.  •  I  John  iv.  18. 


-96  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

atpfffn,  whence  our  heretical  is  derived,  a  word  mostly  used  in  the  sense  of 
heterodox,  to  denote  one  who  denies  the  ecclesiastically  accepted  (orthodox) 
creed.  In  Biblical  language  the  word  has  not  originally  this  unfavourable 
meaning.  It  means  there,  in  general,  one  party  as  distinguished  from  another; 
for  instance,  the  yet  new  Christianity,  as  distinguished  from  traditional  Juda- 
ism.4 It  was,  however,  used  very  early  in  malam  partem?  to  denote  those  who 
destroy  the  unity  of  the  Church  by  producing  divisions.  Since  this  was 
usually  the  consequence  of  differing  views,  "  the  man  that  is  an  heretic,"6  as 
well  as  the  heterodox,  was  condemned  as  such  more  severely,  in  proportion  to 
the  degree  in  which  unity  of  Church  and  confession  was  sought.  So  we 
may  say  that  the  oldest  heresy  was  uncharitableness  and  faction,  very  soon 
united  with  disavowal  or  contradiction  of  the  confessed  truth,  if  indeed  it 
did  not  spring  from  it.  Heresies  were  already  attributed  in  the  earliest 
days  to  ^evSoStSdcmiXot,7  and  Luther,  too,  uses  the  word  Sectirer  in  the  sense 
of  Rotten  und  Schwarmgeister.  Since  this  heresy  usually  exhibits  an  aggres- 
sive character,  and  seeks  to  exert  a  revolutionary  influence  in  its  domain, 
it  was  from  early  times  treated  by  the  Church,  not  merely  as  sickly,  but 
as  hostile.  While,  therefore,  rejecting  as  heretical  the  views  of  those 
who  contradict  the  doctrine  which  is  considered  orthodox,  the  Church  con- 
demns as  Schismatics  those  who,  in  consequence  of  their  zeal  for  personal 
opinions,  sever  themselves  from  the  body  of  the  Church  to  found  a  separate 
community. 

7.  We  have  historic  evidence  that  every  religion  which  contains  any 
vitality,  has  from  that  very  reason  been  the  prolific  mother  of  many  sects ; 
but  the  question  now  arises,  whether  we  are  here  entitled  to  speak  of  a 
morbid  phenomenon.  Our  affirmative  answer  does  not  deny  that  the 
arising  of  sects  is  natural,  necessary,  and  even  relatively  good,8  and  that  the 
excessive  number  of  sects,  which  chiefly  divides  the  professors  of  Christianity 
and  Religion,  may  be  called  in  some  degree  an  evidence  of  the  manifold- 
ness  of  revelation,  and  of  the  inexhaustible  riches  of  the  Gospel.  But  still 
we  must  for  more  than  one  reason  deplore  this  restless  eagerness  in  the 
formation  of  sects,  as  a  fatal  phenomenon ;  for  it  generally  springs  from 
an  egotistical  desire  to  be  "  something  wholly  independent,"  and  thereby  in- 
evitably sins  against,  not  only  love,  but  also  the  truth ;  for  even  that  which 
relatively  is  right  becomes  wrong,  where  it  is  maintained  at  the  expense  of 
equity  towards  a  brother.  Each  disruption,  besides,  in  consequence  of  the 
conflict  of  opinions,  inevitably  bears  in  itself  the  seeds  of  new  dissensions. 
Finally,  every  tendency  to  separation  rests  (specially  in  the  domain  of 
Christianity)  on  a  deplorable  forgetting  of  the  distinction  between  Church 
and  spiritual  community,  or  must  at  least  inevitably  lead  to  it  On  this  sub- 
ject we  shall  treat  more  amply  hereafter,  when  we  come  to  speak  about  Eccle- 
siology.  Saddest  of  all  is  it  that  this  disease  generally  appears  with  the 
presumptuous  assertion  that  it  is  the  very  thing  which  represents,  or  at  least 

Acts  xxiv.  5,  14 ;  xxvi.  5  ;  xxviii.  22. 

1  Cor.  xi.  1 8,  19  ;  Gal.  v.  20. 
Tit.  iii.  10. 

2  Pet.  ii.  I. 

I  Cor.  xi.  18.  19 ;  Matt,  xviii.  7. 


ITS  RULE.  97 

prepares  the  way  for,  the  normal  and  healthy  condition  of  the  Church.  The 
sect  will  not  merely  be  a  part  of,  but  a  surrogate  for,  the  pure  Church.  In 
a  certain  sense  we  might  call  Sectarianism  Individualism  on  a  more  extended 
scale,  separating  itself  egotistically  from  others.  If  it  be  supported  by 
powerful  leaders,  it  may  appear  even  as  a  presumptuous  UierarMsm,  with 
all  its  consequences  of  persecution,  of  heresy,  and  hate.  If  one  sinner 
destroyeth  much  good,9  how  much  more  will  a  close  union  of  sick  and 
erring  ones  injure  the  highest  and  the  best  ! 

8.  Fortunately,  one  morbid  phenomenon  generally  neutralizes  another  ; 
in  many,  too,  nature  resists  the  fatal  influence  of  the  wrong  doctrine  :  other- 
wise, as  the  final  result  of  each  disease,  the  death  of  that  Religion,  which  is 
the  highest  life  of  mankind,  is  threatened.  By  the  exclusive  supremacy  of 
the  understanding,  the  delicate  plant  of  the  soul's  inner  life  is  crushed,  and 
the  fierce  dread  of  superstition  may  lead,  under  the  banner  of  religion,  to 
the  most  fearful  cruelties.10  Thus  the  wish  of  its  opponents,  that  Religion 
— in  their  view  more  a  plague  than  a  blessing — may  be  entirely  abolished 
and  destroyed,  becomes,  to  a  certain  extent,  comprehensible.  If  this, 
however,  be  as  little  possible  as  desirable,  we  shall  at  least,  after  dis- 
covering so  much  degeneration,  acknowledge  the  justice  of  the  desire  that 
the  religious  life,  no  longer  left  entirely  to  itself,  may  be  guided  by  an 
infallible  rule. 

Compare,  as  regards  most  of  the  subjects  discussed  here,  the  articles  relating  to  them  in 
Herzog,  R.  £.,  and  especially  the  artt.  Heresy,  by  JAEGER,  and  Sects,  by  PALMER. 
Consult  also,  as  to  these  diseases,  and  their  remedies  and  modes  of  treatment,  J. 
P.  LANGE,  Christ!.  Dogm.  iii.  (1852).  See  also  J.  J.  VAN  OOSTERZEE,  Strijd  en 
Verzoening  in  the  Jbb.  of  1853,  p.  194,  sqq.;  as  well  as  E.  W.  K.RUMMACHER,  Ueber 
Gewisse  Krankhaftigkeiten  des  Pietismus ;  MME.  A.  DE  GASPARIN,  Quelques  Maladies 
des  Chretiens  d'aujourd'hui. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

How  is  the  origin  of  so  much  degeneration  generally  in  the  religious  domain  to  be 
explained  and  judged  ? — Closer  analysis  and  criticism  of  the  morbid  phenomena  sketched 
here.— Explanation  of  the  ideas ;  orthodox  and  heterodox  ;  heretical  and  schismatic. — 
Ecclesiastical  separatism  viewed  in  the  light  of  history.—  Is  it  possible  entirely  to  avoid 
oneskledness  in  the  domain  of  religion  ? — Is  it  not  to  be  expected,  and  so  quite  satisfactory, 
that  this  evil  will  at  last  correct  itself? 


SECTION   XXVII. — ITS  RULE. 


If  the  Religious  Life  is  to  be  developed  not  merely  without 
hindrance,  but  normally  and  harmoniously,  and  to  answer  to  its 
aim,  it  requires  another  rule  than  that  which  human  intelligence 


9  Eccles.  ix.  1 8.  I0  2  Kings  iii.  27. 

H 


98  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

and  self-will  supplies.  The  service,  which  with  fullest  right  God 
claims  from  us,  must  be  a  voluntary,  but  cannot  in  any  case  be  a 
wilful,  one.  It  belongs  only  to  God  Himself  to  prescribe  for  man 
how  He  wishes  to  be  served  and  worshipped,  and  man  from  his 
side  requires  such  a  prescript.  There  is  ho  Religion  where  there  is 
no  original  Revelation  ;  no  pure  Religion  where  no  continuous  and 
nearer  Revelation  of  God. 

1.  The  statement  that  Religion,  to  be  of  the  right  stamp,  must  be  directed 
by  a  trustworthy  rule,  seems  in  itself  hardly  to  admit  of  serious  contradiction. 
Some  think  it  sufficient,  indeed,   if  God   be  only   worshipped    sincerely, 
and  after  the  dictates  of  the  individual  conscience,  as  all  religions   may 
be  equally  good ;  yet  this  assertion  is  nothing  but  the  veriest  superficiality. 
From  this  standpoint,  good  intention  is  the  only  demand,  insincerity  the 
only  heresy,  and  the  subject-matter  of  belief  is  without  any  importance. 
In  believing,  it  is  said  with  Gothe,  the  cardinal  point  is  that  we  believe ; 
what  we  believe  is  a  matter  of  perfect  indifference.     But  what?     Is  there 
not  the  slightest  difference  whether,  e.g.,  mothers  cast  their  children  into 
the  fire  to  Moioch,  or  bring  them  to  J  esus,  since  in  both  cases  they  love 
their  children  ?  or,  again,  whether,  with  the  early  Christians,  we  offer  our 
lives  for  the  brethren,  or,  with  the  Thugs  in  India,  we  go  out  to  murder, 
since  both  are  animated  by  a  pious  zeal  ?  whether  men  crucify  the  flesh 
from  religious  principle,  or  prostitute  themselves  in  the  temple  of  Venus 
vulgaris?    We  can  hardly  maintain  such  propositions  without  incurring  the 
appearance  of  insanity.     If  every  religion  be  good,  provided  it  be  only 
honestly  entertained,  then  every  kind  of  morality  is  equally  holy :  in  other 
words,  the  difference  between  good  and  bad  becomes  merely  traditional. 
This  folly  condemns  itself,  and  will  seek  vainly  in  Holy  Scripture  for  a 
mere  semblance  of  support  •   Holy  Scripture  knows  only  one  way  of  sal- 
vation,1 and  he  who  thinks  that  he  reads  the  contrary  in  the  words  of  the 
Apostle,2  only  shows  that  he  does  not  understand  the  meaning  of  those 
words,  because  he  loses  sight  of  the  context. 

2.  If,  then,  every  religion  is  not   equally  good,    the   question   arises, 
whether  it  is  not  at  least  enough  that  every  one  is  guided  on  this  subject 
as  far  as  possible  by  his  own  intellect,  feeling,  and  conscience.     Without 
contradiction,  this  is  desirable  and  necessary,  only  we  must  not  forget  that 
that  which   is  indispensable   cannot   by    any  means  be  therefore  called 
sufficient.    Opinion  here  interchanges  with  opinion,  prescript  with  prescript. 
The  image  worship,  which  the  Monotheist  considers  folly,  is,  perhaps,  for 
the  Polytheist  quite  rational.     That  same  feeling,  which  restrains  us  from 
human  sacrifice,  leads  the  Hindoo  to  expose  his  dying  father  to  the  croco- 
diles of  the  Ganges ;  and  the  conscience,  which  to  us  forbids  suicide,  impels 
the  widow  of  the  Brahmin  to  the  funeral  pyre.     But  even  in  the  almost 
inconceivable  case  that  all  men,  laying  on  one  side  their  peculiar  views,  sue- 


'  John  xiv.  6;  Act  iv.  12.  *  Acts  x.  34,  35. 


ITS  RULE.  99 

ceeded  in  forming  a  conventional  religion  (just  in  the  same  way  as  Leibnitz 
dreamed  of  a  conventional  language),  this  would  not  exhibit  any  higher 
character  than  that  of  a  religion  of  will-worship,8  which,  on  that  very 
account,  would  cease  to  be  religion  of  the  true  stamp.  A  real  consecration 
of  a  man  and  his  all  to  God,  may  and  must  be  voluntary,  but  in  no  case 
arbitrary.  Religion,  in  its  deepest  form,  is  always  sacrifice,  and  the  neces- 
sity of  offering  something  to  God  is  a  peculiar  characteristic  of  grateful  love.4 
But  that  sacrifice  only  can  be  well  pleasing  to  Him,  which  is  not  only 
well  meant,  but  is,  besides,  presented  according  to  His  will,  and  in  agreement 
with  His  design.  Freedom  of  worship  is  as  much  a  right  as  a  privilege  ; 
no  creature  is  capable  of  placing  himself  between  God  and  our  conscience. 
But  serving  God  after  the  dictates  of  the  conscience  is  something  else  than 
serving  Him  after  the  inspirations  of  our  own  self-will.  Though  in  my 
worship  I  am  bound  to  nothing  but  the  voice  of  my  conscience,  that 
conscience  itself  is  not  unconditionally  free.  On  the  contrary,  it  acknow- 
ledges its  duty  to  obey  a  higher  will,  and  submits  itself  to  that  higher  will. 
That  only  is  true  religion,  which  is  voluntarily  guided  by  God's  will; 
God's  will  must  be  our  sole  rule  in  the  domain  of  religion. 

3.  Or  may  man,  perhaps,  consider  himself  as  entirely  free  from  any  obliga- 
tion towards  religion  ?    In  that  case,  certainly,  there  is  no  need  of  speaking 
of  a  rule,  but  the  case  itself  is   inconceivable.     Both  in  the  objective  and 
subjective  sense  in  which  we  can  speak  of  religion,  it  is  evident  that  man 
has  not  only  a  conditional  but  an  unconditional  obligation  towards  religion, 
yea,  that  religion  must  be  all  to  us,  else  it  is  nothing  in  our  life.     The  tie 
which   unites   man    to    God  as    his   Creator,  Benefactor,    Lawgiver,  and 
Judge,5  may  be  called  absolutely  indissoluble.     But  if  this  is  so,  then  is  it 
clear  as  the  noonday  sun  that  God  has  the  fullest  right,  not  only  to  demand 
that  He  should  be  served,  but  also  to  prescribe  how  man  shall  serve  Him. 
Religion  is  then  objectively  good,    when  it  agrees  with  the  will  of  God ; 
yet  how  shall  man  learn  to  know  that  will,  if  He  Himself  does  not,  in 
some  way  or  other,  make  Himself  known  ?     Thus  the  idea  of  Religion  is 
closely  united  with  that  of  Revelation,  and  as  the  result  of  this  part  of  our 
investigation  we  boldly  collect  our  conclusion  in  the  twofold  proposition  : 
(i)  All  religion  has   its   origin  in  original  revelation.      (2)  Pure  religion 
requires  continuous   and  nearer   revelation.      On    these   two    subjects  we 
have  a  word  of  conclusion,  and  of  transition. 

4.  What  is  involved  in   Revelation  we   naturally  do  not  here  deter- 
mine.    We  use  the  word  here  simply  in  the  sense  of  a  communication  of 
God  to  man,  in  whatever  form  this  may  be  conceived ;  and  we  state  in 
other  words,  religious  life  would  never  have   arisen  without  a  revelation 
of  God  to  and  in  man.     Of  two  things,  one  ;  either  religion  is  something 
purely  accidental  and  conventional — but  in  this  case  neither  is  its  origin,  nor 
its  continuance,  nor  its  universality,  nor  power,  explicable;  or  religion  is 
originally  planted  by  the  Creator  in  the  heart  of  humanity ;  in  other  words, 
religion  itself  is  the  fruit  and  evidence  of  an  original  revelation  of  God. 
As,  after  all  that  has  been  said,  this  last  position  may  be  called  absolutely 


1  Col.  ii.  23.  4  2  Sam.  xxiv.  24.  s  Cf.  §  22  ;  I  John  iv.  19. 

H  2 


IOO  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

necessary,  so  it  appears  of  itself  acceptable,  especially  on  account  of  the 
following  facts  : — 

First.  The  religious  feeling  is  either  potentially  or  actually  present  in  all 
men.  We  have  already  observed,  "There  are  no  innate  ideas;  the  knowledge 
of  a  higher  Being  is  inborn  in  us  as  little  as  any  other  knowledge.  Man 
is  born  with  the  faculty  of  sight,  not  with  the  views  themselves  ;  with  the 
feeling  for  art,  but  not  with  the  capacity  for  execution.  But  his  desire, 
inclination,  and  necessity  to  believe  in  God,  when  he  hears  of  Him,  is 
incontestable ;  and  if  that  disposition  is  derived  from  none  other  than  the 
Creator  Himself,  this  in  itself  betrays  at  once,  and  without  any  ambiguity, 
the  hand  of  the  architect."  "  Only  by  the  aid  of  the  higher  revelation  can 
we  explain  the  original  development  of  the  religious  life."  (Kostiin.) 

A  second  proof  is  the  tradition,  found  almost  everywhere  in  the  most 
varying  forms,  of  an  original  communion  between  the  Godhead  and  man- 
kind, between  heaven  and  earth ;  a  tradition  which,  in  its  universality  and 
relative  agreement,  seems  utterly  inexplicable  if  it  had  not  the  very  least 
basis  of  truth. 

A  third  proof  is  the  origin  of  language  and  the  first  development  of  the 
power  of  speech.  This  gift  of  God,  and  goodliest  of  His  gilts,  who  can 
satisfactorily  explain  it,  who  does  not  find  with  Plato  and  so  many 
others  something  originally  Divine  in  language,  and  assume  that  it  must 
have  been  spoken  in  some  way  to  man,  if  it  were  to  be  spoken  again  by 
him?  Even  Rousseau  declares  that  he  "was  thoroughly  convinced  of  the 
almost  demonstrated  impossibility  that  languages  could  have  arisen  and 
developed  themselves  by  merely  human  means." 

Lastly,  there  is  Monotheism,  whose  origin  remains  quite  unexplained  if 
we  do  not  believe  in  an  original  revelation.  For  its  derivation  from  the 
peculiar  instincts  of  the  Semitic  race  (Renan)  is  merely  a  well-sounding 
phrase.  All  Semitics  were  not  Monotheists ;  and,  as  regards  Israel, 
the  popular  tendency  was  almost  invariably  towards  idolatry  and  image- 
worship.  He  who  asserts  that  the  Hebrew  had,  by  his  own  strength, 
mounted  to  an  idea,  to  which  the  highly  civilized  Greek  so  many  centuries 
aftenvards  attained  scarcely  or  not  all — from  his  antipathy  to  the  Supra- 
natural,  forces  upon  us  the  Unnatural.  Indeed,  "if  we  are  asked  whence 
Abraham  alone  and  singly  had  not  only  the  first  vision  of  God,  but 
also  how,  whilst  he  forswore  all  other  gods,  he  came  to  the  knowledge  of 
the  One  God,  only  one  answer  can  satisfy  us  :  by  personal  Divine  revela- 
tion." (Max  Muller.) 

5.  As  long  as  all  these  facts  remain  certain,  and  besides  can  only  be 
explained  by  this  one  hypothesis,  ignorance  and  prejudice  are  not  specially 
to  be  sought  on  the  part  of  the  supporter  of  a  belief  in  Revelation.  As 
little  admits  it  of  serious  contradiction,  that  a  pure  religion  has  an  absolute 
need  of  constant  and  further  revelation  of  God,  and  that  without  this  it 
would  at  least  be  inconceivable.  That  feeling  is  the  source  of  the 
yearning  of  the  soul  which  re-echoes  so  often  and  so  tcuchingly  through 
the  pages  of  Holy  Scripture.6  However  man  may  be  inclined  towards 
God,  that  inclination  would  soon  be  choked  if  we  might  not  on  reasonable 

•  Exod.  xxxiii.  18 ;  Isa.  Ixiv.  I  ;  John  xiv.  8. 


ITS  RULE.  101 

grounds  be  convinced  that  God,  on  His  part,  continues,  in  some  way  or 
other,  to  hold  communion  with  man.  Reville  has  called  prayer  "  une 
gymnastique  spirituelle,"  of  which  a  true  fulfilment  on  God's  part  is  out 
of  the  question.  If  this  conviction  were  generally  accepted  and  applied, 
the  wings  of  prayer  would  be  broken.  The  religious  feeling,  too,  is 
nothing  but  the  disposition  and  capacity  to  accept  that  which  God  reveals 
of  Himself;  and  where  this  last  is  consciously  and  stubbornly  rejected, 
the  first  too  will  lose  its  power.  No  wonder  that  all  founders  of  religion 
have  appealed  to  special  revelation ;  without  such  appeal  they  never 
would  have  succeeded  or  even  appeared.  Men  talk  of  a  purely  natural 
religion  ;  but  this  is  much  less  general  than  it  seems,  and  in  the  best 
case  is  only  to  be  met  with  among  a  few  of  the  most  highly  developed. 
Yea,  even  this  form  of  religion,  as  well  as  the  positive  facts  of  history, 
point  back  at  last  to  revelation ;  for  continued  investigation  ever  attests  the 
saying  of  the  Christian  philosopher,  "  To  desire  to  know  God  without 
God  is  impossible ;  there  is  no  knowledge  without  Him  who  is  the  prime 
source  of  knowledge."  (Von  Baader.) 

Comp.  H.  LUEKEN,  Die  Traditionen  des  Menschen-^eschlechts,  oder  die  Uroffenb,  Codes 
unter  den  lleiden  (1856)  ;  H.  STEINTHAL,  der  Ursprung  dei-  Sprache  in  zusammenhang  mit 
den  letzten  Fragen  alles  Wissens  (1858);  DlESTEL,  der  Monotheismus  des  alien  Heidentk. 
•;wzii%Hch  bei  den  Semiten,  in  de  Jahrbiicher  fur  Deutsche  Theol.  (1860),  iv.  ;  H.  C. 
MILLIES,  Oratio  de  Monotheismo  Israelitarum,  etc.  (1867);  and  particularly  MAX 
MUELLER,  Essays  (1867),  The  Essay,  Semitic  Monotheism. 


POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

The  soundness  of  the  proposition,  Religion  everything  or  nothing  to  man. — Sources  and 
consequences  of  the  assertion  that  all  religions  are  equally  good. — Explanation  of  Acts 
x-  34>  35- — Is  it  possible  for  man  to  act  in  accordance  with  his  conscience,  and  yet  in 
direct  conflict  with  the  will  of  God? — The  (6e\o0prj<rKfia  of  earlier  and  later  times. — 
Are  the  mysteries  of  the  religious  life  really  insoluble  if  we  will  not  admit  an  original 
revelation  ? — Why  is  a  pure  religion  not  lastingly  conceivable  without  a  continued  and 
even  closer  revelation  ? — Transition  to  the  treatment  of  Apocalyptics. 


CHAPTER  II. 

REVELATION. 


SECTION  XXVIII.— ITS  IDEA. 

BY  Revelation  we  understand  that  work  of  the  living  God  by  which 
He,  in  certain  ways  and  for  certain  ends,  makes  known  to  His 
rational  creatures  the  secrets  of  His  will  and  nature.  So  far  all 
Revelation  is  only  one  ;  though  real  distinction,  together  with  an 
undeniable  union,  exists  between  External  and  Internal,  General 
and  Special  Revelation,  the  Revelation  of  words  and  of  facts.  The 
one  as  well  as  the  other,  but  the  special  or  extraordinary  Revela- 
tion above  all,  offers  to  Christian  Apocalyptics  a  field  for  particular 
investigation,  equally  extensive  and  important. 

i.  The  connexion  between  this  chapter  and  the  preceding  is  evident. 
If  all  religion  rests  upon  revelation  (§  27),  the  consideration  of  the  former 
leads  of  itself  to  that  of  the  latter.  Apocalyptics  is  that  part  of  the  science 
of  Dogmatics  which  teaches  us  more  expressly  about  the  idea,  the 
subject-matter,  and  the  grounds  for  the  certainty  of  Divine  revelation. 
It  is  only  in  later  times  that  it  has  become  the  custom  to  treat  of  this 
Revelation  in  general,  and  as  a  separate  subject  In  former  times  this 
doctrine  was  treated  along  with  that  of  Holy  Scripture.  The  Bible  was 
regarded  as  a  whole  as  a  "  rewlatio  Dei  mediata"  while  by  " revelatio 
immediata"  men  denoted  that  enlightening  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  was 
enjoyed  by  the  sacred  writers.  Thus  the  ideas  of  revelation  and  inspira- 
tion were  easily  confounded.  As  distinguished  from  "  Theologia  Naturalist 
"  Theologia  Revelata "  was  simply  that  which  was  derived  from  Holy 
Scripture  ;  and  to  the  question,  what  we  must  understand  by  "  Revelatio" 
and  what  we  must  think  of  it,  the  answer  was  sometimes  utterly  defective. 
If  we  will  put  an  end  to  this  uncertainty  and  confusion,  it  can  only  be 


ITS  IDEA.  103 

done  by  a  sharper  distinction  between  the  two  ideas — Revelation  and  Holy 
Scripture. 

2.  At  once  the  question  meets  us,  how  can  we  gain  an  accurate  idea  of 
God's  revelation  ?  It  is  well  known  how  inexcusably  this  word  has  often 
been  played  with  in  the  theological,  philosophical,  and  even  the  sesthetical 
domain.  Even  the  creations  of  a  Mozart,  or  a  Uannecker,  for  example, 
have  been  called  a  revelation  from  the  kingdom  of  tones  and  statues, 
while  Hegel  has  given  the  same  name  to  his  philosophy.  The  confusion 
of  speech  was  increased  by  the  fact,  that  the  idea  of  revelation  was  con- 
strued in  an  arbitrary  manner,  under  the  influence  of  other  religious  ideas 
imported  into  it.  The  danger  of  all  this  is  seen  in  various  examples,  and  is 
specially  evident  where  it  is  felt  that  even  the  human  understanding  surfers 
under  the  influence  of  sin.1  It  may  be  said  to  be  impossible  to  determine  any- 
thing here  a  priori,  and  it  must  be  stated  at  the  outset  that  a  pure  idea  of  re- 
velation cannot  in  any  case  be  obtained  by  a  merely  speculative,  but  only  by 
an  historico-philosophic  method.  It  is  true  that  this  idea  always  presupposes 
the  existence  of  a  God,  which  we  shall  afterward  expressly  demonstrate, 
as  far  as  possible,  and  that  of  certain  facts  to  which,  whether  correctly  or 
not,  a  character  of  revelation  has  been  assigned.  Here,  too,  we  cannot 
of  ourselves  produce  any  idea  out  of  our  mind ;  but  only  reflect,  and 
ponder  afterwards,  on  that  which  has  already  been  historically  established. 
The  idea  of  revelation  can  be  deduced  from  the  facts  only  of  revelation, 
provided  these  be  sufficiently  established. 

3.  To  a  certain  extent  the  word  revelation  explains  itself.     It  may  be 
said,  etymologically  considered,  to  denote  the  becoming  manifest  as  well  as 
the  making  manifest.    We  employ  it  in  this  latter  active  sense,  to  denote  an 
act  of  the  living  God,  who  thus  not  only  unconsciously  becomes  manifest, 
but  makes  Himself  manifest  to  the  reasonable  creature,  which,  as  such,  has 
the  necessary  receptivity  for  such  manifestations.     Revelation  is,  therefore, 
a  bringing  into  light,  imparting,   unveiling,  of  that  which,  without  this  act, 
would  be  and    continue,  unknown  ;    a  becoming  known  of  God,   directly 
effected   by    Himself,    an   act    whose    consequence    is    that    something 
completely  new  is  brought  to  our  knowledge.     Thus  revelation  can  never 
be  something  involuntary.     It  is  always  something  purposed,  which  is  free, 
and  has  been  willed.     However  much   the  Gospel  may  give  occasion  to 
speak  of  a  revelation  of  God  the  Father  to  the  Son,2  as  well  as  to  the 
world  of  spirits,3  we  expressly  mean  here  that  which  is  imparted  to  man. 
To  the  question,  what  does  God  reveal?    our  answer  can  only    be,  He 
reveals  Himself,  His  will  and  being,  in  so  far  as  He  can  and  will  be  known 
by    the   creature  ;  in  Biblical  language,   He    reveals  the  thoughts  of  His 
heart.     The   subject-matter  and   material  of  Revelation  is  thus   not  one 
abstract  idea,  not  a  chequered  collection  of  facts  of  all  sorts,  nor  even  a 
number  of  truths  side  by  side,    but  the  Truth  (i  d\7j0«a)  in  the  domain 
of  morality  and  religion,  which  is  the  expression  of  God's  nature,  will,  and 
counsel. 

4.  The  Biblical  form  of  expression  agrees  with  this  definition  of  our 
subject.     God's  act  or  deed   of  revelation   is   denoted   by   two   nouns : 

1  Eph.  iv.  1 8.  2  John  v.  20.  *  Eph.  iii.  10. 


IO4  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 


(making  plain,  manifestatio),4  and  d-n-oK^v^^^  (unveiling,  revelatio).6 
For  the  elucidation  of  the  same  idea,  the  words,  Sr;\o:v  (i  Pet.  i.  u), 
yvuplfav  (Luke  ii.  15),  SfiKvtivcu  (Matt  xvi.  20),  fnfiavifriv  (John  xiv.  21,  22), 
and  a  few  others,  are  still  to  be  noticed.  As  the  next  classical  place, 
Hebrews  i.  i  deserves  to  be  considered,  where  revelation  is  presented 
as  a  speaking  of  God,  at  sundry  times  and  divers  manners  by  the  pro- 
phets, afterwards  followed  by  the  word  of  the  Son  as  His  last  and 
highest  revelation.  What  God  utters  by  the  prophets  must  thus, 
according  to  the  meaning  of  Holy  Scripture,  be  distinguished  from  the 
utterance  of  their  own  merely  human  consciousness,  as  is  proved  by  a 
number  of  instances.6  When  we  try  to  define  our  conception  of 
revelation,  facts  of  this  kind  must  by  no  means  be  passed  over;  and  it  is 
not  science,  but  arbitrariness,  when  these  facts  are  purposely  denied, 
because  they  belong  to  that  which  has  been  arbitrarily  declared  to  be  im- 
probable or  impossible.  The  idea  of  revelation  must  not  be  deduced 
from  some,  but  from  all  the  facts  of  revelation  combined,  and  compared 
with  one  another,  as  far  as  these  facts  admit  of  an  historico-  critical  vindica- 
tion. And  when  we  do  this,  it  soon  appears  that  here  a  Divine  and  a 
human  factor  are  working,  distinct  from  one  another,  but  still  most  closely 
united.  In  the  act  of  revelation,  God  is  speaking,  demonstrating,  proving  ; 
man  is  hearing,  learning,  receiving.  In  former  times  no  doubt  a 
mechanical  representation  of  revelation  was  too  easily  accepted,  and  this 
revelation  was  too  much  looked  upon  as  a  mere  outward  imparting  of 
ideas,  which  were  to  man,  not  merely  new,  but  entirely  strange.  The  later 
Theology,  on  the  contrary,  maintains,  with  reason,  a  more  dynamic  concep- 
tion, in  consequence  of  which  we  can  speak  of  a  mystic,  but  not  of  a 
magical,  operation  of  God.  Revelation,  too,  however  metaphysical  in  its 
origin,  is  undoubtedly  brought  about  by  psychological  means,  and  pre- 
supposes a  decided  receptibility  on  the  part  of  him  to  whom  it  is  made 
known  and  explained.  But  though  the  receptivity  is  here  an  indispensable 
condition,  the  subjectivity  is  never,  and  in  no  way,  the  source  of  the 
revelation  of  God.  If  this  were  the  case,  then  the  entire  belief  in  revela- 
tion would  be  nothing  but  a  fruit  of  self-deceit,  at  least  of  want  of 
sufficient  self  knowledge,  in  consequence  of  which  the  so-called  interpreters 
of  Divine  revelation  would  have  regarded  their  subjective  feelings  as 
objective  teachings  of  God.  The  truth,  as  appears  from  the  facts,  is 
found  in  a  higher  sphere,  and  only  then  receives  its  proper  recognition 
when  we  conceive  of  revelation  as  "  a  self-imparting  of  God,  an  imparting 
of  Divine  truth,  in  which  the  imparting  of  light  and  life  mutually  con- 
dition each  other"  (Martensen,  page  12).  Revelation  is  always  a  word  of 
God  to  man,  which  is  heard  and  understood  by  him,  not  a  word  of  man 
to  himself. 

5.  Revelation,  even  where  it  has  come  in  a  greater  or  less  degree  within 
reach  of  the  organs,  can  only  be  received  and  accepted,  as  such,  by  the 
eye  and  ear  of  the  spirit.  Nous  6pa  KO.I  vovs  d.Kofci,  r&\\a  dt  rv<f>\d.  teal  Kw<f>d. 

4  John  ix.  3  ;  Rom.  i.  19  ;  iii.  21  ;  xvi.  26,  etc. 

.  21  ;  Rom.  xvi.  25  ;  I  Cor.  ii.  10  ;  Gal.  i.  16,  etc. 
xv.  1  1  ;  xvi.  6.  7  ;  2  Sam.  vii.  3  —  5  ;  2  Kings  iv.  27. 


ITS  IDEA.  IO5 

We  should  have  less  discussion  concerning  the  peculiar  character  of 
that  organ,  if  we  kept  more  in  mind  that  revelation  was  given  "  in  divers 
ways."  Why  should  a  revelation  by  dream  or  vision  be  necessarily 
observed  by  the  same  organ,  as  e.g.  that  by  Urim  or  Thummim?  Even 
the  formula  "  the  Lord  said,"  need  not  always  be  explained  in  the  same 
manner.  The  distinction  also  between  the  historical  and  poetical  books 
of  the  Bible  is  here  to  be  remarked  ;  and  the  nature,  too,  of  the  different 
subjects  to  which  this  speaking  of  God  refers,  ought  to  be  considered. 
The  ordinance  for  the  single  ornaments  in  the  tabernacle,  e.g.,  was  hardly 
made  in  the  same  manner  as  the  unveiling  of  the  expectation  of  a  Messiah. 
Generally  speaking,  the  utterance  of  God  must  be  regarded  as  neither 
external  and  mechanical,  nor  as  merely  figurative.  The  Spirit  of  God 
reveals  itself  internally  to  the  spirit  of  man,  and  this  receives  the  voice  of 
God,  not  less  plainly  than  the  bodily  ear  receives  sounds.  By  its  own 
internal  clearness  and  force  this  voice  makes  itself  known  to  the  con- 
sciousness as  Divine,  well  distinguished  indeed  from  that  which  the  mere 
natural  insight  announces,  and  on  that  very  account  irresistible.7  And 
thus  the  subject-matter  of  the  revelation  is  always  something  which  man 
would  not  have  known  if  it  had  not  been  imparted  to  him  by  God.  It 
appears,  as  the  sun,  from  behind  the  dark  clouds. 

6.  We  are  thus  naturally  drawn  on  to  the  allied  idea  of  Mystery  ;  as  to 
which  we  must  at  once  carefully  distinguish  between  the  Biblical  and  the 
ecclesiastical  use  of  the  word.  The  Ghurch  has  for  ages  used  the  word 
fiviTTripiov  to  denote  things  in  the  domain  of  religion,  which,  from 
their  character,  were  beyond  human  insight.  It  was  granted  that,  as 
there  were  solemnities  in  Christianity  which  must  be  concealed  from 
the  uninitiated,  there  were  also  doctrines,  not  only  uncomprehended,  but 
utterly  incomprehensible,  which  could  be  best  denoted  by  the  name  Mystery. 
In  the  New  Testament  something  quite  different  is  denoted  by  /LWO-TT^WW. 
Jesus  calls  the  kingdom  of  God  a  nwT-qpiov,  which  "  it  is  given  to 
His  disciples  to  know,"8  and  Paul  speaks  of  the  Gospel  as  "a  mystery 
which  is  now  made  manifest." 9  The  absolutely  incomprehensible  is  not  thus 
denoted  by  this  word,  but  merely  that  which  is  not  yet  made  manifest, 
and  which,  in  consequence  of  its  manifestation,  has  ceased  to  be  a 
mystery.  As  such  it  is  above  the  reach  of  the  natural,  but  not  of  the 
spiritual  man.10  The  word  besides  refers,  in  the  New  Testament,  not  to 
doctrines,  but  to  facts  which  are  partly  now  made  known,11  and  partly  to  be 
waited  for  in  the  future.12  Now,  indeed,  we  see  from  the  nature  of  the 
case  that  even  a  revealed  mystery  may  have  its  dark  sides  :  the  sun  come 
forth  from  behind  the  clouds  nevertheless  still  dazzles  our  eyes.  But 
Holy  Scripture  nowhere  teaches  that  mystery  as  such  lies,  and  must 
necessarily  lie,  entirely  beyond  the  reach  of  all  human  ken ;  the  con- 
trary is  evident  from  i  Cor.  xiii.  2,  Eph.  iii.  4.  Mystery,  too,  though 
never  wholly  penetrated,  may  still  be  known,  but  only  by  means  of 
Revelation. 

T  Amos  iii.  8 ;  Jer.  xx.  7—10.  '°  I  Cor.  ii.  14—16. 

*  Matt.  xiii.  u.  "   I  Tim.  iii.  16. 

•  Ro.n.  xvi.  25,  26.  12  I  Cor.  xv.  51,  52. 


106  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

7.  We  must  carefully  distinguish  between  External  and  Internal  revela- 
tion. In  the  New  Testament  the  first-named  is  always  caited  <t><u>epu<Tit 
(manifestatio),  the  other  &woK&\v^a  (revelatio).  The  first  presents  the 
objective,  the  second  the  more  subjective  side  of  the  matter.  The  first  is 
that  act  of  God  by  which  He  from  His  side  exhibits  or  makes  known  that 
which  before  was  unknown  ;  the  second,  that  operation  by  which  is  taken 
away  from  the  eye  of  the  spirit  the  veil  (<ccC\iw«i)  which  prevented  its  seeing 
the  truth.  The  purely  exegetical  question,  whether  the  New  Testament 
makes  everywhere  a  sharp  distinction  between  these  two  words,  or  uses 
them  sometimes  indiscriminately,  need  not  here  occupy  our  time,  since  even 
in  the  latter  case  the  right  and  importance  of  the  distinction  in  itself  cannot 
possibly  be  doubted.  What  avails  the  brightest  light,  if  the  eye  is  not 
open  for  the  light  ?  The  appearing  of  Christ  was  undoubtedly  a  revelation 
of  the  glory  of  God ;  but  the  Jews  saw  it  not,  because  a  veil  was  upon 
their  face;18  and  when  it  was  understood  by  Peter,  it  was  in  consequence 
of  an  internal  revelation  of  the  Father.14  Even  the  sight  of  the  external 
manifestation  of  Christ  would  have  been  without  influence  for  the  inner 
life  of  St.  Paul,  if  God  had  not  pleased  to  reveal  His  Son  in  him.15  In 
this  respect,  too,  there  is  a  difference  between  objective  revelation  (^Wpwo-is) 
and  subjective  (d  -  o/cdXv^w),  that  while  the  former  is  given  in  a  definite  fact, 
which  has  either  happened,  or  must  happen  afterwards;16  the  latter,  on  the 
contrary,  continues  and  proceeds  everywhere,  where  a  subjective  view  of  the 
objectively  revealed  truth  prevails,  because  in  every  sensuous  man  there  is  a. 
Ka\vti/j.a  or  veil  which  must  be  removed,  if  he  is  to  see  spiritual  things.  This 
whole  distinction  is  of  great  importance  when  we  are  dealing  with  Socinians 
on  one  side,  or  Mystics  on  the  other.  The  Socinian  reverences  the 
objective  side  of  the  matter  at  the  expense  of  the  subjective,  while  the 
Mystical  view  is  an  exact  opposite.  The  acknowledgment  of  the  distinc- 
tion and  union  of  these  two  sides  is  necessary  to  an  accurate  representa- 
tion of  the  truth.  Where  external  and  internal  revelation  is  united,  there 
is  found  the  properly  so  called  science  (aw-eo-is)  of  the  mystery  of  Christ,17 
which  on  its  part  again  kindles  the  light  for  him  who  has  received  an  eye 
from  God  to  see,18 

8.  The  distinction  between  General  and  Special  revelation,  too,  is 
founded  on  the  nature  of  the  case  and  the  statements  of  the  Bible.  By 
the  first,  or  the  ordinary,  we  think  of  that  \\hich  is  given  to  all  men, 
without  distinction  of  time  or  place ;  by  the  second,  called  extraordinary, 
that  which  is  as  yet  only  given  to  one,  and  of  which  we  know  from  Holy 
Scripture.  The  question  whether  this  second  really  deserves  the  name  of 
special  revelation,  can  of  course  only  be  answered  later.  We  are  here 
speaking  only  of  the  distinction  in  general,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
from  a  logical  standpoint  this  is  accurate  and  necessary.  Manifestly  the 
knowledge  of  God,  in  which  the  Christian  or  even  the  Israelite  rejoices,  is 
one  thing ;  that  which  man  may  have  without  the  light  of  the  Gospel 
another.  Enough  that  the  distinction  is  everywhere  made  in  Holy 

11  2  Cor.  iii.  15,  16.  '«  See,  e.g.,  I  Pet.  i.  20;  v.  4. 

14  Matt.  xvi.  I  '7  Eph.  iii.  4. 

w  Gal.  i.  16.  '•  i  Cor.  ii.  10 — 12. 


ITS  IDEA.  1C; 

Scripture,19  and  also  expressed  in  the  Confession  of  the  Reformed 
Churches  ;  while,  on  the  contrary,  from  the  standpoint  of  Natura.ism  it  is 
reduced  to  an  empty  sound.  It  is,  however,  less  accurate  to  define,  as  is 
sometimes  done,  the  first  as  the  Natural,  the  second  as  the  Supranatural 
revelation  par  excellence.  All  revelation  indeed,  as  to  its  origin,  has  a 
Supranatural  character ;  it  is  a  revealing  of  the  Supranatural,  of  the  God, 
raised  above  nature. 

9.  A  third  distinction,  that  between  revelation  by  Word  and  by  Facts, 
only  occurs  where  there  is  a  question  of  special  or  extraordinary  revelation. 
If  it  be  granted  that  this  last  really  exists,  it  is  a  question  whether  it  is 
only  given  in  the  facts  with  which  Holy  Scripture  makes  us  acquainted,  or 
also  in  the  doctrine  proclaimed  there.     Whilst  in  former  times  a  too  partial 
value  was  attributed  to  the  last  named,  others,   especially  the  Groningen 
school  in  the  Netherlands,  have  directed  the  mind  to  the  great  facts  of  the 
revelation,  as  the  proper  kernel  of  revelation,  and  recognised  the  doctrine 
(e.g.,  of  the  Apostles)  as  an  authentic  explication  of  those  facts,   whilst 
denying  to  its  utterances  the  character  of  a  revelation,  properly  so  called. 
It  is,  however,  evident  that  the  one  can  scarcely  be  separated  from  the 
other,  and  that  a  revelation,  derived  only  from  facts,  which  must  speak 
further  for  themselves,  would  be  alike  obscure  and  aimless.     St.  Paul  at 
least  does  not  hesitate  to  exalt  his  teaching,  as  well  as  that  of  his  fellow- 
witnesses,20  as  the  fruit  of  a  special  revelation  of  God ;  and  the  Lord,  too, 
attributes  to  His  words  a  proper  character  of  revelation.21     We  speak,  then, 
thoroughly  in  the  spirit  of  Scripture,  of  a  special  revelation  of  God,  not 
only  in  but  also  by  Christ,  as  by  the  Apostles  and  Prophets. 

10.  Less  accurate,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  distinction  ofttimes  made  be- 
tween mediate  (  =  ordinary)  and  immediate  (  =  extraordinary)  revelation;  for 
this  last,  too,  is  made  by  means,  and  the  first,  too,  comes  immediately,  or 
rather  directly,  from  God.     Besides,  the  idea  of  "  immediate  "  is  of  course 
subjective  ;  we  usually  denote  as  such  that  of  which  we  do  not  see,  or 
cannot  indicate  the  means  ;  but  it  does  not  hence  necessarily  follow  that 
no  means  at  all  existed  or  were  employed.     On  the  contrary,  as  far  as  we 
can   see,    God    works  in   both   domains   of  revelation,    though    at    least 
in    special    revelation    the    means    and    ways    exhibit    a    very  varying 
character.     A  very  ancient  form,  which  at  the  same  time  was  the   lowest, 
is  undoubtedly  that  in  dreams,  above  which  Moses  was  already  raised.92 
That  was  a  higher  form  which  took  effect  in  visions  seen  in  a  waking 
exstatic  condition,  such  as  were  vouchsafed  to  different  prophets.     In  Jesus 
Christ,  however,  God's  highest  revelation,  everything  which  was  visionary 
or  exstatic  at  once  subsides.     He  speaks  what  He  has  heard  with  clear 
consciousness  in  His  most  intimate  union  and  communion  with  the  Father, 
and  presents  the  image  of  the  Father  in  His  own  person.28     In  Him,  the 
Incarnate  Logos,  the  </><u>^>w<r«  reaches  its  climax,  without  its  appearing  that 
He  Himself  needed  diro/coXv^u ;  for  even  the  Holy  Ghost,   the  Paraclete, 


19  Ps.  xix.  cxlvii ;  Rom.  iii.  I,  2.  s  Num.  xii.  6 — 8. 

20  I  Cor.  ii.  10;  xii.  7,  8;  Eph.  iii.  3—5.  a  John  xii.  49,  50;  xiv.  8,  9. 

21  John  xii.  49,  50. 


I08  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

does  not  bring  any  entirely  new  revelations,  but  merely  interprets  what 
has  been  given  in  Him.21 

ii.  Whatever  distinctions  may  further  be  considered  necessary  in  this 
domain,  there  always  remains  a  higher  unity  in  the  different  ways  and  forms 
of  the  Revelation.  External  and  internal,  general  and  special  revelation, 
revelation  by  word  and  by  fact,  do  not  exclude  one  another,  but  supplement 
one  another  in  important  particulars.  Even  the  contrast  between  Ordi- 
nary and  Extraordinary  revelation  becomes  unjust,  if  we  forget  that  the 
latter,  though  given  for  a  definite  end,  and  in  a  special  manner,  is  yet 
bestowed  in  the  same  domain  in  which  the  former  is  given.  If  a  general 
revelation  is  given  in  Nature,  History,  Humanity,  the  special  is  certainly  not 
unnatural,  unhistorical,  extra-human.  Thus  the  last  does  not  supplant  the 
first,  still  less  does  it  contradict  it,  but  completes  and  crowns  it.  Both 
testify  of  one  God,  who  works  in  divers  ways,  according  to  the  pithy 
saying  of  Augustine,  "  Opera  mutas,  nee  tamen  mutas  consilium. " 
Apocalyptics,  then,  must  be  occupied  with  both,  but  specially  with  the 
extraordinary.  The  importance  and  difficulty  of  this  investigation  readily 
appears. 

Compare,  as  to  this  chapter  in  general,  the  article  of  KOSTLIN',  named  above ;  C. 
A.  AUBERLEN,  Die  Gottl.  Offenbarung  (1861),  i.  ii.  i.  (Eng.  Trans.)  ;  R.  ROTHE,  Zur 
Dogmatik  (1863),  pp.  55 — 121  ;  A.  E.  KRAUSS,  Die  Lehre  von  der  Offenb.  (1868) ;  C.  T. 
TRIP,  Die  Tlieoplianien  in  den  Geschickts  biichern  ties  A.  T.  (1868)  ;  for  this  section  con- 
cerning the  idea  of  Mystery,  the  dissertation  of  J.  BOELES,  De  Mysteriis  in  Rel.  Chr. 
(1843) ;  as  concerning  Revelation  by  word  or  fact,  the  Prize  Essay  of  P.  v.  D.  \\  ILLIGEX 
(Haag.  Genoots.  1844)  ;  concerning  the  distinction  between  <f>av^puffts  and  ciTro/cciAi'i/'is, 
the  essay  of  Dr.  F.  G.  VAN  BELL  (1849),  and  the  treatise  by  Dr.  J.  CRAMER,  in  the 
Nieuwe  Jbb.  for  1860,  pp.  I — 70,  as  well  as  G.  E.  W.  DE  Wijs,  De  Droomcn  in  en 
buiten  den  Bijbel.  (1858)  ;  A.  BOUVIER,  Jr.,  La  Revelation,  cinq  Conferences (1870). 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Nature,  extent,  and  importance  of  the  task  of  Christian  Apocalyptics. — Necessity  of 
distinguishing  it  from  Bibliology. — Elucidation  and  defence  of  the  accepted  idea  of 
Revelation  drawn  from  the  use  of  language  in  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Confession  of  the 
Church. — What  is  mystery? — Unity  of  Revelation  in  all  its  variety  of  forms. — Modern 
Naturalism  as  contrasted  with  the  Christian  idea  of  Revelation. — The  antithesis  between 
ordinary  and  extraordinary,  as  unchristian  and  unphilosophic  as  the  denial  of  the  actual 
difference  between  the  two. 


SECTION  XXIX.— GENERAL    REVELATION. 

General  Revelation  is  that  which  was  originally  given  to  all  in 
nature,  history,  and  humanity.  It  declares,  from  the  morning  of 
the  creation,  the  certainty  of  God's  existence,  the  majesty  of  His 

M  John  xvi.  12—15  J  Col.  ii.  3. 


GENERAL  REVELATION.  IOQ 

being,  and  the  sanctity  of  His  requirements,  with  loud  and  irre- 
fragable authority.  Its  sublimity  has  been  at  all  times  recognised 
by  the  noblest  of  our  race  ;  its  obscuration  is  sufficiently  explained 
by  the  power  of  sin  in  the  world  ;  its  defence,  especially  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  Reformed  Christian  Church,  is  of  great  import- 
ance ;  and  its  aim  for  humanity  gained  when  it,  properly  employed, 
has  aroused  along  with  the  capacity  the  desire  for  a  special  or 
extraordinary  revelation. 

1.  That  there  is  a  general  Revelation,  is  evident  from  the  existence  of 
Religion,  which  would  be  inexplicable  without  it  (§  27).     It  is  true,  we 
reason  here  in  some  way  in  a  circle  ;  for  he  who  speaks  of  Revelation, 
already  supposes  that  there  is  a  God,  and  to  establish  this  last  conviction 
he   again   appeals   to    Revelation.     This  circle   cannot  be   avoided,    but 
presents,  however,  no  insuperable  difficulty.      "  Is  reasoning  in  a  circle 
absolutely   illicit   in   the  kingdom    of  truth?     Is  not  every  logical  proof 
in  a  certain  degree  founded  on  a  circle  ?     If  the  conclusion  were  not  con- 
tained in  the  premises,  how  could  it  ever  be  deduced  therefrom  ?     Upon 
what  then  does  all  demonstration  depend,  if  not  on  the  evidence  that  we  al- 
ready acknowledge  in  another  form  as  truth  that  which  is  to  be  established  ?" 
(Tholuck.)     Each   proposition,    maintained  as   far  as   possible  for  itself, 
supports  and  assists  the  other,  and  the  existence  of  a  general  revelation 
can  only  be  denied  when  the  existence  of  a  God,  and  the  possibility  of 
all  well-founded  knowledge  of  God,  is  denied. 

2.  The  sphere  of  general  revelation  must,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
be  conceived  as  threefold.     First  of  all,  the  Invisible  reveals  Himself  in 
His  work;    Nature  reflects    His  being;    the  creation  makes  us  see  the 
Creator.     But  there  is  more :  a  God  who  not  only  lives,  but  rules,  must 
also  make  Himself  known  by  His  acts  ;  History  is  thus  the  second  general 
sphere  of  Revelation.     But  we  could  not  speak  of  either  of  these  spheres  if 
it  were  not  that  God  had  specially  revealed  Himself  in  Man  himself,  who 
surveys  nature,  and  consults  history.     We  speak  more  particularly,  but  not 
more  exclusively,  of  man's  conscience.     Reason,  too,  with  its  faculty  of 
ascending  to  the  idea  of  the  infinite ;  and  the  heart,  with  its  boundless 
needs,  cannot  be  conceived  as  aught  else  than  an  original  revelation  of 
God.     We  thus  think  here  of  the  entire  man  as  a  rational  and  moral  being, 
in  other  words,  of  humanity  as  a  whole. — Holy  Scripture  points  expressly 
to  this  threefold  kingdom  of  Revelation.     To  Nature,  in  Psalm  xix.  i ;  Isa. 
xl.  26;  Rom.   i.    19,   20.     To  history,   Exod.  ix.   16;  Acts  xiv.   15 — 17; 
xvii.  25,  26.     To  humanity,  Eccles.  iii.   n  ;  Acts  xvii.  27,  28;  Rom.  ii. 
14,  15.     No  one  among  the  Apostles  has  developed  this  so-called  Natural 
Theology  with  so  decided  interest  as  St.  Paul ;  but  his  Master  had  shown 
him  the  way.1 

3.  To  define  accurately  the  Subject-matter  of  general  revelation  is  not 

1  Matt.  vi.  22 — 34. 


110  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

easy  for  us  who  already  know,  and  cannot  possibly  entirely  forget,  the  light 
of  special  revelation.  In  order  to  discover  it  as  well  as  we  can,  we  must 
expressly  attend  to  the  general  fundamental  ideas,  which  as  latent  presup- 
positions lie  at  the  basis  of  every  religious  form,  and  find  these  in  their 
expression  more  or  less  clearly.  Considering  this,  we  may  assign  as  the 
subject-matter  of  General  Revelation,  first,  the  certainty  of  God's  existence 
as  supreme  Cause  of  all  things ;  secondly,  the  majesty  of  His  being  as  the 
mighty  Creator,  the  wise  Governor,  the  tender  Provider  of  all,  whose 
justice  and  independence  became  apparent  in  the  course  of  the  world's 
history ;  while  conscience  in  particular  expressly  proclaims  His  holiness ; 
and,  lastly,  the  holiness  of  His  claims,  which  follows  of  itself  from  what 
has  been  said.  The  Almighty  demands  worship  ;  the  Only  Wise,  confi- 
dence ;  the  Merciful,  gratitude  ;  the  Just  and  Holy  One  asks  for  acknow- 
ledgment of  His  rights,  and  performance  of  His  will.  The  notions  of  good 
and  evil  are  infinitely  various,  but  the  claim  that  a  man,  in  proportion  to 
the  light  he  has  received,  should  do  that  which  is  morally  good,  and  avoid 
evil,  is  written  in  every  conscience.  It  is  not  proved,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  this  revelation  could  teach  anything  positive  concerning  a  future  life. 

4.  The  Sublimity  of  this  revelation  is  evident  from  its  general  intelligi- 
bility, its  antiquity  and  unchangeableness,  -and  has  the  testimony  of  all 
sides  through  every  age.  As  far  as  concerns  sacred  antiquity,  this  is  seen 
by  a  glance  at  the  books  of  Job  and  Isaiah,  and  the  Psalms  of  Nature — 
such  as  Psalms  viii.,  xix.,  xxix.,  civ.,  and  cxlvii.  But  profane  antiquity 
had,  too,  an  eye  open  to  the  rich  meaning  of  the  book  of  Nature.2  Utter- 
ances of  later  days,  both  in  the  Christian  and  non-Christian  domain,  have 
re-echoed  the  very  same  sounds.  Remember  the  words  of  Bonnet,  "  I 
have  looked  for  the  Author  of  nature  in  His  smaller  productions,  as  well  as 
in  those  where  He  is  seen  in  all  His  majesty,  and  everywhere  I  have  heard 
these  sublime  words,  '  It  is  I ; '  "  or  those  of  Schiller,  "  The  history  of  the 
world  is  the  judgment  of  the  world;"  or  those  of  Jean  Paul,  "God  has 
written  His  name  in  the  stars,  and  sown  it  in  the  flowers  of  the  earth." 
True,  others,  on  the  contrary,  testify  (La  Place,  e.g.)  that  they  do  not 
require  the  hypothesis  of  the  existence  of  God  to  explain  the  riddles  of 
nature.  And  certainly  it  cannot  be  denied,  creation  and  history  hide  God 
from  us,  as  well  as  reveal  Him  to  us.  Yet  even  this  does  not  present 
any  overpowering  difficulty,  if  we  only  do  not  forget  that  the  revelation 
of  God  in  man  himself  is  not  only  the  key,  but  also  the  basis  of  the  sanc- 
tuary of  His  revelation  in  nature  and  history.  The  books  of  both  these 
are,  as  it  were,  written  with  consonants  only,  like  the  Hebrew  Bible  ;  man 
himself,  listening  to  the  voice  of  intellect,  heart,  and  conscience,  supplies 
the  vowel  points.  Where  both  are  united,  there  the  name  of  God,  plainly 
uttered,  sounds  in  our  ears.  We  must  seek  Him  in  order  to  find  Him, 
and  in  some  measure  already  know  Him  in  order  to  seek  Him ;  but  where 
we  do  thus  seek  Him,  there  we  must  find  Him,  because  He  is  really  there. 
As  the  poet  says  (Ruckert) : 

4 '  Nature  is  God's  own  book,  which,  without  revelation,  human  experience  vainly  strives  to 
scan." 

Cicero  de  hat.  D.  II.  2,  De  dtvinal.  II.  72.     Xcnophon,  Memorabilia  I.  c.  4,  §  5,  etc. 


GENERAL  REVELATION.  Ill 

5.  The  Obscuration  of  general  revelation  for  a  great  part  of  mankind  is  the 
sad  effect  of  sin.    To  the  question,  "  How  could  idolatry  and  the  forsaking 
of  God,  with  all  its  horrors,  arise,  if  there  has  ever  been  an  original  revela- 
tion?" the  only  satisfactory  and  acceptable  answer  is  that  given  in  Rom.  iv. 
24 — 28.     The  power  of  truth  is,  as  it  were,  kept  under  by  that  of  unright- 
eousne  s;8  when  the  vowel  within  was  effaced,  the  word  without  became 
illegible.     Polytheism,  not  less  than  Atheism  or  Pantheism,  is  the  fruit  of 
the  fall.    It  is  not  the  indistinctness  of  the  light,  but  the  clouding  of  the  eye, 
which  affords  here  a  reasonable  ground  of  complaint.     This,    however, 
does  not  aftord  any  excuse  for  considering  general  revelation  as  unim- 
portant or  uncertain. 

6.  On  the  contrary,  its  maintenance  is  constantly  of  great  importance 
for  the  cause  of  religion  and  Christianity.     For  general  revelation  is  the 
ground   in  which  the  heavenly  plant  of  special  revelation  is  sown  and 
grows ;  he  who  does  not  understand    the  voice  of  the  former,  misses  at 
the  same  time  that  by  which  he  can  receive,  understand,  and  judge  the 
special  revelation  as  such.     So  it  is  usually  seen  that  disavowal  of  the  first 
leads  to  denial  of  the  second  ;  yea,  even  in  its  consequences  produces  a  ma- 
terialistic conception.    From  the  Christian  Reformed  standpoint  specially  it 
is  necessary  and  possible  to  maintain  general  revelation  on  the  basis  of  that 
which  the  Reformed  Church,  in  accordance  with  Scripture  and  experience, 
teaches  about  the  existence  and  the  right  of  a  natural  knowledge  of  God. 
"  Hoc  quidem  recte  judicantibus  semper  constabit,  insculptum  mentibus  hu- 
manis  esse  divinitatis  sensum,  qui  deleri  nunquam  potest.     Immo,  et  natu- 
raliter  ingenitam  esse  omnibus  hanc  persuasionem  esse  aliquem  Deum,  et 
penitus  infixam  esse  quasi  in  ipsis  medullis,  locuples  testis  est  impiorum 
contumacia "  (Calvin,  Inst.  I.  3,  3).     The   same  conviction  is   most  de- 
cidedly expressed  in  the  Neth.  Conf.,  Art.  II.     It  is  with  reason  defended 
by  the  most  celebrated  Reformed  Theologians,  in  opposition  to  the  Socinian 
one-sidedness,  which  considered  all  knowledge  of  God  as  traditional,  and 
spread  in  a  mechanical  way  in  consequence  of  a  merely  external  communi- 
cation.    How  far  in  this  respect  the  Reformed  Theology  surpasses  that  of 
Luther  or  of  Rome  can  only  be  glanced  at  here.     The  remembrance  of  the 
existence  and  value  of  general  revelation  still  continues,  even  within  the 
Reformed  Churches,  of  great  importance,  as  opposed  by  so  many  who  at 
its  expense  too   partially  exalt   the  extraordinary,  and  scarcely  seem  to 
possess  eye  or  ear  for  that  which  God  speaks  by  the  mouth  of  Nature, 
Humanity,  and  History. 

7.  The  right  Use  of  general  revelation  is  not  to  remain  there  where  it 
brings  us,  and  exalt  it  above  the  special ;  still  less  to  borrow  from  it  our 
weapons  for  combating  the  other ;  it  lies  much  more  in  this,  that  we  suffer 
ourselves  to  be  roused  by  its  voice  to  the  glorifying  of  God,  and  by  its 
silence  on  many  an  important  point  are  further  led  to  ask  for  a  nearer  reve- 
lation which  satisfactorily  supplies  its  defects.     This  nearer  revelation  will 
be  naturally  valued  more  highly  in  proportion  as  the  general  revelation  has 


1  Rom.  i.  18. 


112  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

given  us  a  deeper  impression  of  the  majesty  and  glory  of  God,  and  agrees 
with  it  in  a  more  surprising  manner  on  cardinal  points. 

8.  By  such  a  use  the  Object  of  general  revelation  is  at  last  attained. 
It  is  neither  intended  nor  fitted  to  make  special  revelation  in  any  degree 
superfluous  for  sinful  man.  Much  rather  was  it  given  to  make  man,  such 
as  he  originally  was,  acquainted  with  his  Creator,  and  his  moral  obligation 
towards  that  Creator,  and  it  is  now  intended  to  serve  as  a  schoolmaster  to 
man  as  he  now  is,  as  without  it  there  would  not  be  a  capacity  for,  or  a 
feeling  of  need  of,  an  extraordinary  revelation.  Both  in  the  non-Christian 
and  in  the  Christian  world  such  propsedeusis,  or  preliminary  teaching,  is 
indispensable,  but,  without  more,  insufficient 

Comp.  TERTULLIAN,  De  Testimonio  Anima ;  J.  CALVIN,  Inst.  R.  C.,  I.  4.  i  ;  A. 
SCHWEITZER,  Glaubensl.  der  Kef.  K.  (1844),  i.,  p.  241  ;  J.  H.  SCHOLTEN,  H.  K.,  4th  ed. 
(1861),  i.,  pp.  304 — 326;  J.  J.  VAN  TOORENENBERGEN,  Bydr.  (1852),  i.  bl.  4  enz.  ; 
besides  O.  ZOECKLER,  Theol.  Naturalis  (1860)  ;  BUNSEN,  Gott  in  der  Geschichte 
(1851) ;  and  the  writings  of  VON  HUMBOLDT,  UILKENS,  and  TEN  KATE'S  Creation. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

How  can  we  prove  that  there  is  a  general  revelation  ? — How  is  there  so  much  disunion 
in  the  definition  of  its  subject-matter  ? — The  voice  of  antiquity  and  of  later  times,  as  well 
as  those  of  the  more  recent  natural  philosophers,  concerning  its  beauty  and  value. — The 
subject-matter  and  authority  of  revelation  in  the  conscience.  —  Explanation  of  Rom.  i.  18, 
sqq. — The  importance  of  the  acknowledgment  of  a  general  and  original  revelation  of  God 
for  the  Reformed  system  of  doctrine. — How  can  we  explain  and  how  combat  the  over- 
valuing of  general  revelation  on  one  side,  and  its  misconception  on  the  other  ? 


SECTION  XXX. — SPECIAL   REVELATION — ITS  NECESSITY. 

Special  Revelation  embraces  those  nearer  manifestations  of  God 
which  are  not  yet  communicated  to  all,  though  they  are  intended 
for  all.  Its  necessity,  which  has  been  confessed  in  every  age  as 
differing  from  and  convincingly  attested  by  the  history  of  Religion 
and  Philosophy,  springs  from  the  miserable  position  into  which  the 
dominion  of  error,  sin,  misery,  and  death  has  brought  all  mankind. 
It  cannot,  therefore,  be  proved  to  any  one  who  ignores  the  power 
of  sin  and  the  necessity  for  redemption.  Where,  however,  these 
last  are  confessed,  there  the  absolute  indispensability  of  a  special 
revelation,  even  in  the  form  of  a  Revelation  of  Salvation,  is  placed 
beyond  all  doubt. 

i.  The  question  whether,  and  to  what  extent,  there  exists  in  the  Divine 
Being  Himself  the  desire  to  reveal  Himself  in  other  modes  than  the  ordi- 


SPECIAL   REVELATION.  113 

nary  ones  to  His  creatures,  does  not  belong  to  the  domain  of  Christian 
Dogmatics,  but  rather  to  that  of  speculative  philosophy.  Here  we  have 
only  to  do  with  the  necessity  for  a  Special  Revelation  on  the  side  of 
mankind.  We  maintain  this  on  historical  and  empirical  grounds,  but  not 
without  important  conditions. 

2.  The  history  of  Religion,  as  viewed  generally,  has  already  offered  more 
than  one  indubitable  proof  of  the  necessity  for  a  special  revelation.     It  is 
at  once  to  be  observed  that  so  many  founders  of  Religions  have  appealed 
to  such  a  revelation,  and    have  thus  involuntarily  declared  that  natural 
Religion  leaves  questions  which  could  not  be  set  aside,  and  yet  remained 
unanswered.     It  is,  indeed,  more  than  sufficiently  apparent  that  the  general 
revelation  originally  granted  was  almost  nowhere  preserved  in  its  purity, 
but  has  been  everywhere   forgotten.       "  Igniculos    dedit  nobis  parvulos, 
quos  celeriter  malis  moribus  opinionibusque  depravati,  sic  restinguimus,  ut 
nusquam  naturae  lumen  appareat  "  (Cicero).     Where  the  consciousness  cf 
God  is  obscured,  morality  has  also  sunk  to  a  depth,  as  profane  literature 
most  sadly  testifies.      The  people  of  Israel,  ever    raised,    in   respect   to 
religion,  so  far  above  all  other  nations,  are  seen  to  fall  back  constantly  into 
a  depth  from  which  it  can  only  be  lifted  by  the  hardest  trials.     If  this  be 
the  most  favourable  exception,  how  sad  must  the  ordinary  condition  of  the 
vast  majority  have  been  ! 

3.  The  history  of  Philosophy,  too,  very  far  from  leading  us  to  different 
conclusions,  supports,  in  its  own  way,  the  conviction  we  have  expressed  ;  as 
will  be  seen,  if  we  think  of  the  folly  and  inconsistency  of  many  propositions 
concerning  God  and  Divine  things,  which  have  been  accepted,  defended, 
and  applauded  ;   of  the  conflicts  of  systems  and  schools,  struggling  one 
against  the  other,  each  with  more  or  less  of  right ;  of  the  last  ng  uncertainty 
even  about  the  best  results  of  philosophic  thought  and  effort,  so  long  as  the 
confirmation  of  a  closer  revelation  was  wanting  ;  of  the  utter  powerlessness 
of  the  schools  of  philosophy  to  satisfy  the  deepest  needs  of  the  individual, 
and  specially  to  found  a  really  religious  communion  ;  lastly,  of  the  disdain 
and  distrust  with  which  we  see  that,  in  consequence  of  all  this,  philosophy, 
shortly  before  the   appearance   of  Christianity,  was  treated  on  every  side, 
whilst   the  despair  of  all  firmly   established  truth   is   ever  more  forcibly 
expressed  in  the  last  pages  of  the  older  history  of  philosophy.     In  order  to 
form  a  right  judgment,  we  must  not  look  on  that  philosophy  which  has 
received  Christian  baptism,  but  at  the  results  of  human  reflection,  utterly 
devoid  of  the  light  of  a  nearer  revelation  ;  and  thus  we  shall  be  led  now  and 
then,  it  may  be,  to  admiration,  but  much  oftener  to  sorrow  and  painful 
astonishment,  when  we  see  in  this  domain  the  most  sublime  so  closely 
connected  with  the  most  absurd. 

4.  No  wonder,  then,  that  we  see  the  necessity  for  a  Special  Revelation 
recognised  on  various  sides,   and  confessed  in   divers  ways.      According 
to   a   striking   fancy   of  Christian   antiquity,    of   all    philosophers,   Plato, 
it  is  said,  was  the  first  to  hasten  to  meet,  and  to  kneel  before  the  feet 
of  the  crucified  Lord,  as  He  appeared  in  Hades.     Certain  it  is  that  Plato 
has  more  distinctly  than  any  one  else  expressed  the  want  which  has  been, 
supplied  by  the  revelation  of  the  Light  of  the  world.     The  journeys,  too, 
which  he  and  others  made  to  the  East,  in  order  to  learn  the  religions  there 

I 


114  CHRISTIAN    DOGMATICS. 

show  how  little  they  were  content  with  their  own  private  and  national  ideas 
of  religion.  We  might  point  to  many  a  place  in  his  writings,  which  testifies 
to  the  longing  after,  and  presentiment  of,  a  nearer  revelation ;  to  the  wants 
which,  expressed  or  excited  by  so  many  of  the  mysteries  of  antiquity, 
were  still  very  far  from  being  satisfied ;  to  the  profound  meaning  of  the 
fable  of  Prometheus,  the  myths  of  Hercules;  and  elsewhere  to  the 
expectations  of  Mithras  and  Sosiosch  ;  to  the  remarkable  ease  with  which 
the  expectations  of  salvation,  entertained  by  the  otherwise  despised  Jews, 
were  spread  and  embraced  in  the  East,  as  well  as  to  other  phenomena. 
Even  among  the  nation  which  had  the  privilege  of  a  special  revelation  we 
meet  voices  which  testify  of  the  deeply  felt  need  of  higher  light  and  life.1 
Prophecy  symbolises  and  calls  out  that  want,  but  is  not  able  to  fulfil  it. 
Even  Christian  philosophy  is  not  ashamed  to  confess  "  that  we  might  as 
well  try  to  run  without  feet,  as  to  know  the  Divine  without  a  revelation 
from  on  high,  and  that  without  its  light  we  should  be  like  beasts  fattened 
in  the  dark,  merely  to  die."  (Clem.  Alex.)  The  image  may  not  be  very 
choice,  but  the  fact  is  not  the  less  true.  Even  the  opponents  of  Special 
Revelation  gave  now  and  then,  involuntarily,  a  similar  testimony,  as,  e.g., 
the  English  Deist,  Lord  Herbert  of  Cherbury  (f  1648),  who,  after  he  had 
completed  an  essay  to  undermine  this  belief,  wished  a  proof  of  higher 
approval,  and,  as  he  narrates  himself,  thought  he  heard  this,  in  answer  to  his 
prayer,  in  a  soft  rustling  of  the  wind.  Who,  after  listening  to  the  highest 
oracles  of  human  wisdom,  has  not  had  something  of  that  peculiar  feeling, 
so  naively  interpreted  by  Goethe  in  his  paraphrase  of  the  question,  "  Are 
here  all  thy  children  ?"  2  We  are  not  surprised  to  hear  the  confession  and 
prayers  of  Kepler,  Leibnitz,  Bacon,  Newton,  and  so  many  of  the  most 
brilliant  minds,  which  show  how  little  the  light  which  nature  and  reason 
supplies,  satisfied  them.  If  there  were  still  anything  wanting  to  the 
importance  of  all  these  testimonies,  it  would  be  furnished  by  pointing  to 
the  lamentable  blindness  and  folly  to  which,  in  these  days,  so  many  have 
come,  who  have  entirely  broken  with  the  belief  in  a  Special  Revelation  ;  and 
who  now,  as  far  as  they  still  occupy  themselves  in  the  domain  of  human 
thought,  waste  their  strength  in  a  wearying  but  vain  task  of  Sisyphus. 

5.  We  can  fully  account  for  the  number  and  force  of  these  testimonies, 
when  we  look  at  the  miserable  condition  of  man  and  mankind  in  this  world. 
For  centuries  has  been  felt  the  power  of  the  most  fatal  errors,  even  in 
regard  to  the  most  important  questions.  With  regard  to  the  being  of  God, 
as  well  as  to  the  method  of  His  worship,  the  restless  feeling  of  man,  left 
to  itself,  must  lead  to  a  ceaseless  groping  without  finding.  His  knowledge 
of  God  is  partially  impure,  partially  uncertain  ;  his  worship,  without  a 
nearer  revelation,  at  best  arbitrary,  and  mostly  immoral.  —  Along  with 
the  power  of  the  error  which  obscures  the  intellect,  comes  that  of  sin, 
which  disturbs  the  conscience.  It  calls  sin  a  debt,  which  the  sinner  must 
credit  to  himself,  but  which  he  is  utterly  unable  to  acquit.  No  peace 
within,  if  there  be  not  an  absolute  certainty  that  the  debt  is  paid  : 
no  certainty  on  this  point  by  the  light  of  nature  and  reason  alone. 


1  Ps.  xiv.  7  ;  Isa.  Ixiv.  i.  f  i  Sam.  xvi.  II. 


SPECIAL  REVELATION.  115 

Nature  speaks  of  the  goodness  of  God,  but  is  silent  about  grace ;  and 
the  reason  of  the  most  celebrated  philosophers  has  never  risen  to  the 
notion  of  His  redeeming  love.  As  little  do  either  of  them  know  of  any 
means  by  which,  not  merely  the  guilt,  but  the  power  and  dominion  of  sin 
in  the  heart  and  the  world  can  be  broken.  The  sinner  is  as  powerless  for 
regeneration  as  for  averting  the  righteous  sentence  of  God. — Thus  he 
must  be  always  in  this  life  a  prey  to  increasing  misery.  Because  the 
sinner  ever  remains  man,  he  feels  a  deep  discord  within;  because  man  is 
a  sinner,  he  cannot  restore  the  impaired  balance  of  his  moral  powers.  The 
sorrows  and  struggles  of  this  earthly  life  daily  call  for  comfort,  but 
philosophy  cannot  supply  this  want ;  all  that  it  can  do  is  to  rock 
to  sleep  the  suffering  heart,  or  else  to  petrify  its  feeling. — Thus  we 
grow  up  for  death,  which  is  already  dreaded  and  hated,  and  know  not 
whether  it  will  offer  us  any  other  prospect  than  that  'of  complete 
annihilation.  The  desire  of  life,  almost  ineradicable,  gives  thoughts  of 
continuance  ;  nature  makes  us  everywhere  see  life  spring  out  of  death,  and 
now  and  then  there  arises  a  strong  presentiment  of  it,  but  the  absolute 
certainty  is  wanting.  Besides,  the  question  here  is  not  merely  as  to  an 
endless,  perhaps  joyless  existence,  but  as  to  eternal  life  in  the  full  force  of 
the  word ;  and  with  regard  to  this  question  sinful  man  is  entirely  deprived 
of  sufficient  data.  Why  should  we  say  more?  Even  if  sin  and  death  had 
not  come  into  the  world — we  shall  afterwards  hear  whence  they  came — God 
would,  perhaps,  for  the  further  perfection  of  man,  have  granted  to  him 
the  privilege  of  a  nearer  revelation  of  His  will  and  being.  At  least,  the 
sacred  account s  of  the  first  trial-command  makes  us  think  this  not  utterly 
improbable.  But  now,  since  nature  and  history,  as  well  as  reason  and 
conscience,  remain  silent  as  to  the  most  pressing  questions  of  the  restless 
and  sinful  heart,  a  nearer  revelation  of  God  may  be  called,  not  merely  a 
most  desirable  blessing,  but  at  the  same  time  an  undeniable  need. 

6.  In  this  condition  we  might  be  naturally  surprised  that  all  voices  do 
not  unanimously  agree  to  what  has  been  already  heard,  if  we  did  not  at 
the  same  time  remember  that  the  acknowledgment  of  the  necessity  of  a 
special  revelation,  however  reasonable,  always  depends  at  least  on  an 
important  condition.  We  call  to  mind  here  the  words  of  a  distinguished 
Theologian  :  "  He  only,  who  self-righteously  denies  the  sinfulness  of  the 
natural  man,  can  dispute  the  necessity  of  a  supranatural  revelation" 
(Sartorius).  He  alone  will  acknowledge  it,  Avho  considers  the  fact  of  sin, 
and  the  necessity  for  redemption  in  the  full  light  of  conscience.  "  Reve- 
lation obtains  its  proper  place  only  in  the  Divine  plan  of  redemption " 
(Nitzsch).  He,  therefore,  who  does  not  see  the  necessity  of  redemption, 
will  still  less  allow  the  inclispensability  of  revelation.  The  principle  of  its 
denial  was  stated  centuries  ago  in  the  words,  "  They  that  are  whole  need 
not  a  physician,  but  they  that  are  sick."4  A  Pelagian  Anthropology 
necessarily  leads  to  a  systematic  contest  against  Christian  Apocalyptics. 
So  it  is  ever  a  folly,  how  often  committed,  to  wish  to  prove  the  necessity 
of  a  special  revelation  to  every  individual  without  exception.  We  shall  do 


1  Gen.  ii.  16,  17.  «  Matt.  ix.  12. 

I  2 


Il6  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

well  to  learn  first  his  notions  about  the  great  problem  of  sin;  and  for  him 
who  in  his  own  view  is  healthy,  to  keep  for  a  better  hour  the  commenda- 
tion of  the  physician,  now  considered  unnecessary.  Where,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  power  of  sin  is  recognised  as  guilt  and  the  source  of  all  misery,  it 
will  at  once  be  seen  that  any  nearer  revelation  would  be  utterly  without 
effect  if  it  did  not  specially  supply  to  the  sinner  that  which  he  does  not 
find  in  general  revelation,  thereby  displaying  the  character  of  a  Divine 
Revelation  of  Salvation. 

7.  In  reality,  as  history  attests,  special  revelation  first  appeared  after  the 
fall,5  as  a  revelation  of  grace  and  life,  encountering  guilt  and  death.  But 
from  this  its  character  it  naturally  follows  that  it  is  not  only  relatively  but 
absolutely  necessary,  and  that  it  ever  is  the  same  for  every  sinner.  Has 
special  revelation  been  often  valued  as  quite  indispensable,  either  to  con- 
firm that  which  reason  had  already  proclaimed,  or  to  educate  man,  and  to 
raise  him  to  such  a  height  that  he  can  at  last  even  do  without  its  light? 
this  must  be  considered  still  too  weak  a  tribute  to  the  truth.  Man,  as  a 
sinner,  required  not  merely  a  confirmation  of  the  truth  taught  by  reason,  but 
a  higher  revelation  of  salvation ;  we  require  not  merely  education,  but 
redemption  from  sin  and  misery,  and  a  further  revelation  can  alone 
point  out  to  us  the  way  to  this  height.  To  whatever  height  he  may  rise 
in  other  respects,  sinful  man  by  himself  will  always  be  unable  to  deliver 
himself  and  his  race  from  the  combined  power  of  error  and  sin,  of 
misery  and  death.  All  Hamartology,  if  conceived  in  its  real  depths,  is  a 
continual  proof  of  this  thesis.  In  consequence  of  all  that  has  been  said, 
the  question  whether  that  which  must  be  called  indispensable,  may  also 
be  considered  as  possible,  becomes  thus  of  still  greater  importance. 

Comp.  J.  LELAND,  The  Advantage  and  Necessity  of  the  Christian  Revelation  (1764) ; 
W.  T.  LANG,  Ongenoegzaamh.  der  natuuri.  Godgeleerdh.  (Haagsch.  Gen.,  1796)  ;  E.  DE 
PRESSENSE,  Histoire  de  I'Eglise  Chret.,  etc.  ;  G.  C.  B.  ACKERMANN,  Das  Chiistliche  in 
Plato  (1835)  J  A-  c-  VAN  HEUSDE,  De  Consolatione  apud  Graces  (1840)  ;  J.  N.  SEPP, 
Das  Hddenthum  und  dessen  Bedeutungfiir  das  Christenth.  iii.  Th.  (1853)  ;  A.  NICOLAS, 
Etudes  Philosoph.  sur  le  Chrislianisme (1%$!),  i.,  pp.  197 — 303;  C.  E.  LUTHARDT,^/^^'. 
Vortrage  (1864),  pp.  116 — 127;  F.  HETTINGER,  Apolo.ie  des  Christenth.  (1865),  ii., 
pp.  47 — 109 ;  H.  CREMER,  Vernunft,  Gauissen  und  Offenbarung,  being  pp.  51 — 99,  of 
the  Neun  Apologet.  Vortrage,  held  in  Bremen  (1869)  ;  K.  GEROK,  Sind  das  die  Knaben 
ai!e. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Further  elucidation  of  the  proof  derived  from  the  history  of  Religion  and  Philosophy. — 
In  what  connexion,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  case  and  history,  does  the  denial  of  the 
necessity  of  a  special  revelation  stand  to  theoretical  and  practical  Pelagianism? — The 
difference  between  revelation  and  education.  (Lessing.) — Ought  not  the  necessity  referred 
to,  in  order  to  be  admitted  by  us,  to  be  everywhere  acknowledged  and  confessed  ? 


SECTION  XXXI. — ITS   POSSIBILITY. 
,   The  possibility  of  a  Special  Revelation,  however  much  it  has  been 

5  Gen.  ifi.  8—15. 


ITS   POSSIBILITY.  117 

denied,  now  in  the  name  of  Speculation  and  now  in  that  of  Expe- 
rience, can  be  just  as  little  reasonably  doubted  as  its  necessity.  Its 
idea  presents  no  insuperable  difficulty,  logically,  metaphysically,  or 
psychologically.  The  realisation  of  this  idea  conflicts  neither  with 
the  majesty  and  unchangeableness,  nor  with  the  wisdom  and  good- 
ness of  God.  Even  the  very  great  number  of  pretended  special 
revelations  does  not  give  any  right  to  reject  the  existence  of  a 
real  and  authentic  one,  as  in  itself  unreasonable ;  and  that  which 
does  not  now  occur  may  nevertheless  have  been  communicated 
before.  The  impossibility  of  a  Special  Revelation  can  only  be  said 
to  be  for  ever  proved,  when  that  of  Miracle  is  demonstrated. 

1.  An  express  investigation  into  the  possibility  of  Revelation — we  use 
this  word  now  and  hereafter  to  denote  the  extraordinary — seems  at  the 
first  glance  almost  superfluous.     For  unbelief  at  once  calls  the  idea  of 
such  a  revelation  so  foolish,  that  a  serious  weighing  of  its  possibility  might 
almost  be  called  labour  in  vain  ;  and  belief,  on  the  contrary,  convinced 
on  good  reasons  of  the  reality  and  Divinity  of  revelation,  feels  already 
sure  that  this  which  really  exists  must  of  course  be  possible  too.     Yet 
these  considerations  ought  not  to  restrain   the  Apologist  from  expressly 
treating  of  the  question  in  point.     A  thoughtful  belief,  at  least  in  a  healthy 
state,  requires  that  that  should  be  justified  as  reasonable,  which  it  confesses 
as  existing  in  fact ;  and  unbelief  celebrates  too  quickly  its  victory,  when  it 
simply  puts  on  one  side  the  idea  of  a  special  revelation,  as  we  do  that  of 
wooden  iron  or  of  a  square  circle.     Certainly,  if  the  question,  Can  God 
give  a  nearer  revelation  of  Himself,  and  can  that  revelation  be  understood 
and  conceived  by  man  ?  may  henceforth  be  tacitly  placed  on  a  level  with 
that  as  to  belief  in  the  goblins  of  childish  fables,  Naturalism  has  decided 
and  won  its  great  cause.     But  as  long  as  a  speaking  tongue  is  still  granted 
to  one  priest  of  the  science  of  faith,  he  will  resist  such  violent  measures  as 
the  very  pitch  of  arbitrariness,  and  never  be  weary  of  repeating  Hdra^ov  i^vt 
&KOVITOV  8e,  in  opposition  to  the  rudest  assaults. 

2.  There  is  not  the  slightest  trace  of  novelty  in  that  denial  of  the  pos- 
sibility  of  revelation   which   hab   been   renewed   in  our  time.      Already 
Epicurus  taught  "  Dei  humana  non  curant,"  and  even  among  the  Israelites 
they  were  not  wanting  who  said,  "  The  Lord  does  neither  good  nor  evil." 
Christian  Apologists  have  always  for  centuries  had  to  resist  this  denial  in 
various  forms  ;  and  since  the  time  of  the  English  Deists,  the  Rationalists  in 
Germany  have  specially  sharpened  their  weapons  for  the  destruction  of  the 
Christian  idea  of   revelation  ;    whilst  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  remind 
that  the  pantheistic  philosophy  of  earlier  and  later  times  cannot  possibly 
admit  this  idea.     The  Naturalism  and  Positivism  of  our  days,  too,  at  once 
rejects  the  idea  of  such  a  revelation,  as  in  itself  utterly  unworthy  the  con- 
sideration of  any  serious  and  independent  thinker. 

3.  In  opposition  to  these  different  voices,  the  possibility  of  Revelation 


118  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

cannot  naturally  be  maintained  from  any  standpoint,  but  only  from  one 
which  is  duly  de.ermined  and  denned.  Here,  too,  as  in  so  many  other 
questions,  everything  depends  on  our  conception  of  God.  The  atheist 
considers  the  notion  of  revelation  a  mockery,  whilst  he,  who  though 
recognising  the  existence  of  God,  considers  Him  as  separated  from 
the  world  by  an  impassable  gulf,  stands  in  silent  despair  on  this  side  of 
the  chasm.  He,  however,  who  places  himself  at  a  Christian-theistic 
standpoint — which  shall  be  afterwards  justified — must  inevitably  allow  that 
there  are  no  insuperable  difficulties  against  the  idea  of  a  special  revelation, 
nor  against  its  wished-for  realisation. 

4.  No  logical  difficulty,  from  any  side,  can  be  brought  against  the  idea 
of  a  Revelation  per  se.     It  conflicts  as  little  with  itself,  as  with  other  sound 
ideas  of  God  and  Divine  things.     A  revelation  is  as  conceivable  as  a  sun, 
which  at  first  rises  through  the  darkness.     Yea,  the  idea  itself,  when  once 
the  need  of  such  a  benefit  is  acknowledged,  is  both  attractive  and  worthy 
of  God.     Neither  is  there  any  metaphysical  difficulty,  which  should  force 
us  to  reject  this  idea  at  once  as  absurd.     A  living  God  must  be  able  to 
reveal  Himself;  a  God  who  is  love  must  will  to  do  so,  where  He  considers 
it  necessary.     "  Could  He  who  is  the  Life  be  the  unmoveable  ;  He  who  is 
Love  be  the  silent  one?     It  would  be  a  contradiction  to  His  being;  and 
even  when  His  existence  had  been  fully  demonstrated,  this  contradiction 
would  make  us  falter  in  our  belief.     So  little  is  revelation  a  contradiction 
of  God's  nature,  that  the  want  of  it  would  much  rather  c<  ntradict  Him  " 
(Luthardt).    Lastly,  a  revelation  of  God  would  only  be  psychologically  incon- 
ceivable, if  it  were  proved  that  man  was  entirely  void  01  capacity,  either  to 
discern  it  as  such,  or  to  accept  duly  its  contents.  It  may,  however,  be  plainly 
stated  to  the  honour  of  mankind,  this  incapacity  has  never  yet  been  proved, 
nor  can  it  be  proved,  so  long  as  the  humanitas  divinitatis  capax,  which  was 
formerly  professed  by  heathen  lips,1  is  anything  more  than  a  well-sounding 
phrase.     All  new  discoveries,  combinations,   snatches  from  the  treasure- 
house  of  genius,  in  that  domain   of  the  world  which  is  higher  than  the 
material,  give  proof  of  man's  capacity  for  the  higher  and  the  highest,  and 
so  far  deserve  to  be  called  "  typical  signs  of  revelation."    Besides,  General 
revelation  has  preceded  Special,  and  by  it  has  man  been  developed  and 
prepared  for  the   latter.     Indeed,   the  pcetic  "child  of  the  world"  who 
spoke  the  words,  "  The  spirit- world   is  not  closed,  thy  mind  is  closed,  thy 
heart  is  dead,"  has  had  more  real  and  worthy  thoughts  of  mankind  than  a 
materialistic  philosophy  which  snatches  from  our  race  the  crown,  just  as  it 
wishes  to  dethrone  God. 

5.  If,  then,  the  Idea  of  Revelation  does  not  present  any  preponderating 
difficulty,  still  less  can  we  advance  any  against  its  Realisation.     This  last 
has  been  considered  irreconcilable  with  the'  high  Majesty  of  God,  and  every- 
thing has  been  thought  to  be   said  when  the  puny  man  who  dreams  of 
special  revelations  has  been  made  to  glance  for  a  moment  at  the  perplexing 
sight  of  the  canopy  of  heaven  glittering  with  the  starlight  of  myriads  of 
worlds.     But  in  opposition  to  the  discoveries  of  the  telescope,  the  won- 


1  Acts  xvii.  28. 


ITS   POSSIBILITY.  1 19 

ders  of  the  microscope  appear  in  their  endless  succession  ;  and  never 
certainly  is  the  Infinite  greater  than  when  He  bends  down  to  the  low- 
liest and  the  humblest.2  For  the  same  reason  might  the  entire  crea- 
tion, sustenance,  and  government  of  so  unimportant  a  world  be  classed 
among  the  catalogue  of  absurdities.— Nor  is  the  fact  of  revelation,  as  here 
supposed,  in  conflict  with  the  Unchangeableness  of  God.  This  unchange- 
ableness  cannot  in  any  case  be  thought  of  as  a  rigid  immobility ;  God,  the 
rock,  the  Petra  of  ages,  is  not  a  petrifaction  of  Himself.  The  neces- 
sity of  a  special  revelation  is  not  a  consequence  of  the  defectiveness  of  the 
general,  which  had  in  later  time  seemed  to  require  some  completion  ;  but 
a  consequence  of  the  new  condition  in  which  man  has  been  brought  by 
sin  after  he  first  had  received  the  general  revelation.  Where  even  in 
human  life  an  abnormal  condition  demands  an  extraordinary  measure,  uhy 
should  it  there  be  unworthy  of  God  to  expel  the  disease  of  sin  by  a  new 
medicine  ?  Even  that  which  in  His  mode  of  operation  seems  an  alteration 
in  our  eyes  is,  when  viewed  from  God's  side,  without  doubt,  nothing  but 
the  gradual  and  regular  realisation  of  His  adorable  plan. — Or  should  His 
Goodness  forbid  Him  to  confer  so  needful  help  upon  only  a  relatively  few, 
instead  of  all  ?  Before  we  repeat  this,  let  us  remember  that  God  certainly 
has  no  obligation  to  any  man,  and  that  even  the  special  revelation,  really 
intended  for  the  race,  originally  was  in  its  heads  (Adam  and  Noah)  be- 
stowed in  principle  on  humanity.  Neither  can  God  be  reproached  with  the 
consequence  of  delay  and  neglect  of  duty  on  the  part  of  those  who  were 
called  to  make  His  revelation  known  to  their  contemporaries;  and  we  know 
that  God  will  not  reap  where  He  has  not  first  sowed. — Least  of  all  have 
we  right,  with  reference  to  His  Wisdom,  to  maintain  constantly  that  a  reve- 
lation, really  derived  from  Him,  would  not  at  any  rate  show  any  dark  side, 
but  must  much  rather  be  raised  above  even  the  possibility  of  doubt. 
Certainly  it  is  easy  here  to  advance  various  claims,  which  may  seem  quite 
acceptable  at  first ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the  question  maintains  its  indis- 
putable right,  What  would  a  revelation  be  which  revealed  nothing  but 
what  man  could  find  out  for  himself?  Mysteries  surround  us  every- 
where, the  least  in  the  lowest  domain,  why  then  should  they  be  beyond 
measure  offensive  to  us  in  the  very  highest  domain  ?  "  Do  ye  not  see," 
so  said  the  acute  Hamann  (fiySS),  taunting  the  Rationalists  of  his  time, 
"  that  God  is  a  genius,  who  inquires  very  little  about  what  ye  call  rational 
or  irrational  ?  "  And  as  for  proofs,  can  they  not  be  in  themselves  sufficient, 
though  they  are  constantly  exposed  to  opposition  on  many  sides  ?  and  would 
a  belief  which  rested  upon  reasons  of  mathematical  certainty  exhibit  a  so 
much  higher  moral  character,  or  could  it  even  be  properly  called  a  religious 
belief? 

6.  Still  less  insuperable  are  the  difficulties  which  have  been  raised  against 
the  possibility  of  revelation  in  the  name  of  History  zx\&  Experience.  It  does 
not  decide  anything  to  the  detriment  of  our  revelation  to  point  out  the 
great  number  of  pretended  revelations  amongst  nations  and  founders  of 
religions  of  all  kinds.  In  every  case  this  phenomenon  testifies  of  a  deeply 


2  Ps.  cxiii.  5,  6. 


I2O  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

felt  need,  and  rather  causes  us  to  suspect  that  a  true  coinage  must  exist,  of 
which  the  false  one  is  a  copy.  If  twenty  impostors  were  to  struggle  for  the 
possession  of  an  inheritance  on  insufficient  reasons,  will  the  judge  then 
decide  that  there  is  no  legal  heir — perhaps  that  there  never  was  a  testator? 
— If  it  be  said,  that  at  any  rate  at  present  (as  far  as  we  know)  there  is  no 
longer  a  Special  Revelation,  yet  one  must  once  for  all  establish  his  right  to 
decide  that,  because  a  thing  does  not  occur  at  the  present  instant,  such  a 
thing  never  happened  before,  nor  could  ever  have  taken  place.  Might 
not  this  extraordinary  revelation  have  been  of  such  a  nature  as  to  render  its 
repetition  in  after  days  unnecessary  for  any  one  ? — The  complaint,  lastly,  that 
the  notion  of  a  Revelation  is  rejected  by  the  modern  scientific  thought  as 
wholly  absurd,  justifies  on  our  side  the  objection  that  such  a  philosophy, 
even  taken  for  granted  that  it  were  to  be  considered  as  a  full-grown  science, 
would  only  then  be  qualified  for  speaking  so  boldly  if  it  had  really  taken  all 
the  facts  into  account,  and  among  these  had  explained  satisfactorily  the 
general  belief  of  mankind  in  the  possibility  of  revelation.  Hitherto  this  has 
not  been  the  case,  and  on  this  account  we  refuse  to  yield  to  the  protest 
of  n  party  which  we  consider  as  neither  thoroughly  impartial  nor  properly 
instructed. 

7.  Only  in  one  case  might  the  impossibility  of  a  revelation  be  said  to  be 
for  ever  made  good,  viz.,  when  that  of  miracle  is  not  only  asserted,  but  proved. 
The  question  as  to  Revelation  is  properly  the  question  as  to  Miracle,  and 
will  as  such  be  soon  discussed.  For  the  present  we  are  content  if  that  is 
granted  which  indeed  cannot  be  contradicted  ;  the  Possibility  of  a  miracle 
being  granted,  that  of  revelation  must  also  be  recognised,  and  the  only 
remaining  question  is  whether  there  is  sufficient  reason  to  believe  in  its 
Reality. 

Comp.  F.  DE  ROUGEMONT,  Le  Christ  et  ses  temoins  (1856),  ii.,  pp.  57 — 146 ;  C.  H. 
BOSEN,  Das  Christenthum  und  die  Einspriiche  saner  Gegner  (1864),  pp.  542—554  ;  TH. 
CHRISTLIEB,  Moderne  Zweij'el  am  Christl.  Glauben  (1870),  pp.  121 — 127  ;  and  for  the 
astronomical  d  faculties,  in  addition  to  TH.  CHALMERS'  Astronomical  Discourses,  A. 
EBRARD,  Het  Geloofaan  de  H,  Schrift,  enz.  (1862),  bl.  I  ;  TEN  KATE,  in  his  Planeeten. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

With  what  right  is  the  whole  inquiry  into  the  possibility  of  revelation  excluded 
a  priori? — Historic  declaration  of  the  direct  connexion  of  the  question  with  the  con- 
ception of  God. — Name  any  attribute  of  God  which  is  made  known  to  you  by  general 
revelation,  which  would  appear  in  greater  dignity  if  special  revelation  had  not  been  given, 
or  had  not  been  given  as  it  was. — Might  not  the  grounds  for  the  reality  of  extraordinary 
revelation  have  been  more  indubitable,  aud  ought  they  not  to  have  been  so  ? — In  what 
sense  can  we  assert  that  now  there  is  no  more  extraordinary  revelation  ?  and  what  are 
we  hence  to  conclude  as  to  the  question  under  discussion  ? — Further  exposition  of  the 
close  connexion  between  belief  in  revelation  and  in  miracle. 


SECTION   XXXII. — ITS  REALITY. 
The  reality  of  the  special  Revelation  of  Salvation,  of  which  Jesus 


ITS   REALITY.  121 

Christ  is  the  centre,  is  acknowledged  by  the  Christian  Church  of 
all  ages,  and  defended  in  various  ways  against  continued  opposition. 
Its  character  is  manifested,  not  by  proofs  independent  of  this  reve- 
lation, but  by  such  as  it  has  abundantly,  in  itself.  As  the  sun  is 
known  by  its  shining,  so  Revelation  is  recognised  by  its  own  light, 
and  everywhere  maintains  its  Divinity  on  external  and  internal 
grounds,  where  only  the  moral  conditions  for  its  recognition  exist. 
The  external  grounds  are  to  be  found  in  the  history  of  the  King- 
dom of  God  ;  specially  in  miracles  and  prophecies :  the  internal, 
in  the  contents  of  the  Revelation  itself.  In  the  right  connexion  of  the 
internal  and  external  proofs  lies  the  true  force  of  the  Apology  for 
the  Christian  belief  in  Revelation,  and  upon  the  certainty  thus 
indicated  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  imprints  its  infallible 
seal. 

j.  The  investigation  into  the  necessity  and  possibility  of  revelation  has 
prepared  us  for  the  wider  and  more  important  one  as  to  its  reality.     And 
here  our  starting-point  is  an  undeniable  fact.     Not  to  speak  here  again 
of  Israel  as  the  people  of  revelation  under  the  old  covenant,  the  fact  must 
strike  us  that  Christianity  in  all  ages  has  acknowledged  the  existence  of  a 
special  revelation,  of  which  the  historic  Christ  is  the  living  centre.     It  is 
conscious  that  something  new  has  been   given  to  it  from  God  in  Christ, 
which  is  nowhere  found  without  Him.     This  regards  not  the  belief  of  any 
single  Church,  still  less  of  a  party,  but  that  of  the  holy  Catholic  Christian 
Church  from  its  birth  to  the  present  day.     If  it  be  said  that  there  are  now 
many  Christians  who  refuse  to    see  in  Christianity  the  fruit  of  a  special 
revelation,    it   may   be    questioned    whether   such    may    be   still    called 
Christians  at  all.    We  do  not  judge  here  as  to  any  one's  heart  and  charac- 
ter; but  the  opinion  of  those  who  deny  the  reality  of  an  extraordinary  reve- 
lation can  never  be  considered  Christian,  unless  a  meaning  be  attributed 
to    this   word,    such   as   never    before   was   known.      Every   one   is   not 
Christian  who    chooses  to  call   himself  by  this  name,  but  only  he  who 
shares  the  be.ief  on  which  the  Christian  Church  is  founded.     Christianity 
is  an  historical  Religion,  which  declares  itself  to  be  the  fruit  of  special 
revelations,1  and  he  who  denies  to  it  this  character  has  virtually  placed 
himself  beyond  the  limits  of  the  Christian  community.     This  is  so  plain, 
that  no  one  can  for  a  moment  doubt  about  it,  save  he  who  has  an  interest 
in  the  denial,  and  has  been  assented  to  with  praiseworthy  impartiality  by 
the  ablest  and  most  influential  opponent  of  Christianity.2 


1  I  Cor.  ii.  9. 

2  See  STRAUSS,   Glaubenslchre,  ii.,  p.  175  (1841);  A.  PlERSON,   De  moderne  Richtir,^ 
en  de  Kcrk  (1866).      "  Is  it  not  time,  noble  Reville,  to  put  an  end  to  this  confusion  of 
language?"     The  impression  produced  to  a  very  vide   extent  by  the   arbitrary  reply, 
"  We  remain,"  in  answer  to  the  above  question,  has  not  been  doubtful. 


122  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

2.  Where  Christianity  confessed  that  faith  in  the  midst  of  an  unbelieving 
world,  she  saw  herself  continually  summoned  again  to  maintain  her 
conviction,  in  obedience  to  the  apostolic  command.;3  but  in  every  age 
Apologetics,  in  defending  this  vital  principle,  had  to  change  its  method 
according  to  the  nature  of  the  attack.  At  first  this  assumed  a  more  prac- 
tical juridical  character,  as  is  seen  in  the  writings  of  the  earliest  Apologists. 
Afterwards  it  begins  to  assume  a  more  philosophic  character,  as  is  seen  in 
the  Alexandrine  school,  in  opposition  to  the  Greek  philosophy ;  soon 
after  it  exhibits  a  more  ecclesiastical  character  and  tone.  The  orthodox 
believer  now  defends  his  belief  on  this  point4  against  heretics;  in  the 
middle  ages,5  against  Jews,  Heathen,  and  Mohammedans.  The  same  line 
is  still  followed  by  the  Romish  Church.  In  the  Protestant  Church,  on  the 
other  hand,  we  find  a  more  historico-biblical  tendency  of  apology  showing  it- 
self,6 whilst  afterwards  the  more  psychological  and  philosophic  line,  traced  out 
by  the  master-hand  of  Pascal,  has  been  followed  on  different  sides.  In  our 
days  the  defence  of  the  belief  in  revelation  has  assumed  a  more  Christo- 
antric  character.  The  attention  of  friends  and  foes  has  been  drawn  more 
than  ever  to  this  much  threatened  centre  of  the  circle  of  Divine  truth  ; 
and  men  begin  to  understand  better,  that  when  this  is  safe,  the  conquest  of 
what  belongs  to  the  circumference  will  not  be  long  difficult,  and  both 
Church  and  science  thankfully  acknowledge  the  inestimable  service  which 
an  increasing  number  of  well-prepared  Apologists  have  rendered  to  them  in 
the  great  strife  of  the  century.  Still,  this  feeling  gives  her  no  liberty 
to  let  her  hands  lie  idly  by  her  side.  A  constant  maintenance  of  the 
belief  in  Revelation  is  necessary,  partly  for  the  believer  himself,  who  finds 
himself  equally  bound  and  impelled  to  such  a  testimony  ;  7  partly  for  the 
unbeliever,  to  win  him,  if  possible,  or,  at  any  rate,  to  shame  him  ;  partly, 
lastly,  for  the  Gospel  and  Christianity  itself,  which  with  reason  demands 
that,  at  least,  it  be  not  condemned  unheard. 

3.  The  aim,  which  Christian  Apologetics,  as  it  thus  continues  its  task, 
must  stt  before  it  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the  age,  is  to  show 
expressly  that  the  Christian  Church  rightly  believes  in  an  extraordinary 
revelaiion,  of  which  Jesus  Christ  is  the  centre.  (Comp.  §  17,  5.)  It  can 
never  be  its  object  to  prove,  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word,  the  reality  of 
the  Revelation.  If  this  were  its  task,  it  would  have  to  demonstrate,  first, 
that  there  is  a  God;  and  this  demonstration  has  never  yet  been  so  given, 
that  contradiction  has  proved  absolutely  impossible.  We  stand  here  in 
the  domain  of  sacred  history,  but  the  distinction  between  the  evidence 
given  of  the  most  obvious  historical  facts,  and  that  of  mathematical  pro- 
positions, is  universally  known.  We  cannot  possibly  convince  ourselves 
of  the  accuracy  of  an  historico-scientific  reasoning  quite  in  the  same 
manner  as  we  can  of  that  of  an  arithmetical  sum.  The  intelligent  Apologist 
will  not,  therefore,  expound  a  series  of  syllogisms,  which  end  with  a 


1  I  Pet.  iii.  15. 
4  Augustine. 

*  Abelard,  Agobard  of  Lyons,  etc. 

•  H.  de  Groot  (Grotius),  the  English  Apologists,  Lilienthal,  etc. 
Acts  iv.  20. 


ITS   REALITY.  1 23 

Q.  E.  D.,  but  will  rather  repeat  the  "  Come  and  see "  of  Philip  ;  and 
rarely  will  he  do  this  in  vain,  if  he  only  meet  with  a  Nathaniel.8  As 
regards  others,  to  evince  our  belief  is  our  duty,  but  to  convince  them 
is  more  than  a  merely  human  work.  Faith  finds  its  fii  m  basis  in 
grounds,  but  not  its  ultimate  ground  in  demonstration.  If  the  apologist 
has  placed  the  grounds  for  his  belief  so  cleaily  in  the  light,  and  has 
answered  its  deniers  so  powerfully,  that  he  may  boldly  count  on  the 
testimony  of  the  impartial  intellect,  of  the  soul  desirous  of  salvation, 
and  of  the  awakened  conscience,  he  may  consider  his  task  as  fulfilled,  and 
leave  to  a  Greater  One  the  proper  work  of  converting  opponents  into 
friends  of  the  truth. 

4.  The  mode  of  attaining  this  end,  which  the  Apologist  of  the  Chris- 
tian belief  in  revelation  sets  before  himself,  is  to  let  the  revelation  speak 
simply  for  itself.     Attempts  have  often  been  made  to  prove  its  reality  by 
applying  to  it  criteria  which  seemed  to  be  completely  independent  of  it. 
For  instance,  some   characteristics   were  d  priori  determined,  to   whicii 
a  revelation,  in  case  it  were  given,  ought  to  respond,  if  it    were  to  be 
considered  as  really  Divine.      Thus,  as  Bretschneider  says,   in  order  to 
deserve  confidence,  it  must  exhibit  signs  of  gradual  development     It  must 
be  able  to  found  a  Church,  in  order  to  spread  its  pure  doctrine.     It  must 
be  suited,  not  merely  for  some,  but  for  all  nations ;  must  work  by  purely 
moril  means,  and  must  also  be  contained  in  sacred  writings.     If  revelation 
answers   all  these  requirements,  it  must  be  accepted,  and — happy  coin- 
cidence ! — such  reasonable  demands  are  not  made  upon  Christian  revelation 
in  vain. — The  conclusion  of  the  reasoning  is  evident ;  but  its  self-deceit  is 
too  apparent.     It  is  just  as  if  a  man  had  mode. led  the  shape  of  a  key  in 
wax  ;  from  that  impress  he  makes  a  key,  and  then,  behold !  it  just  fits  in  the 
lock  !     All  these  criteria  were  simply  fixed  by  the  light  of  the  knowledge 
of  the  special  revelation  which  was  to  be  indicated  by  them.     Suppose  it 
had  never   been  written,  this    criterion  would  most  probably  have  been 
accepted,  A  real  revelation  cannot  be  propagated  by  means  of  the  dead 
letter,  but  only  by  the  living  word,   etc.     No,  the   demonstration  must 
not  proceed  from  arbitrary  criteria  from  without,  but  from  the  revelation 
itself.     If  ever  any  line  of  reasoning  wrere  a  priori  utterly  free,  it  would, 
without  doubt,  be  this,  If  there  is  a  revelation,  it  will,  without  doubt,  make 
itself  known  as  such,  as  the  sun  is  seen  by  its  own  light.     Its  credentials 
must    be  found  in  itself,   and   show  a   character   homogeneous   with   it. 
"  Real  revelation  has  so  little  need  of  criteria,  that  it  does  not  even  give  a 
place  for  them.     Revelation  springs  immediately  from  itself,  whilst  it  gives 
to  the  world  a  new  idea  of  God,  in  itself  resplendent  with  evidence.     But 
when  once  such  an  idea  exists  in  the  world  by  revelation,  it  must  then  prove 
itself  by  itself"  (Rothe).     If  it  be  once  attested  that  the  centre  of  Divine 
revelation  has  really  been  given  in  Christ,  then  the  other  at  once  follows, 
and  an  accurate  test  has  been  obtained  for  estimating  the  revelation  given 
in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  the  Apostolic  testimony. 

5.  This  only  must  never  be  forgotten,  that  the  acknowledgment  of  the 


John  i.  46,  47. 


124  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

Divinity  of  the  Gospel,  even  with  and  after  the  strongest  defence,  depends 
ultimately  upon  moral  conditions.  That  which  is  Divine  cannot,  even  as  God 
Himself,  be  demonstrated  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word.  But  it  can 
be  indicated,  as  shown  to  the  eye  which  is  open  for  the  sight  of  God  and 
Divine  things.  A  holy  love  of  truth,  moral  earnestness — in  a  word,  a 
personal  need  of  light  and  life  in  God — is  here  not  only  desirable,  but 
absolutely  indispensable.  That  requirement,  placed  in  the  forefront  by 
the  Gospel  itself,9  is  founded  on  the  nature  of  the  case,  and  is  justified,  in 
many  ways,  by  history  and  experience.  Where  this  disposition  is  wanting, 
there  men  reason  about,  for,  and  against  the  truth,  without  understanding 
it,  as  a  blind  man  would  reason  about  colours.  Where  it  is  found,  there 
men  will  lay  hold  of  the  truth,  and  then  learn  to  spiritually  understand  that 
which  they  have  laid  hold  of. 

6.  Only  in  one  case  would  this  be  impossible ;  viz.,  if  the  doubt 
entertained  by  some  as  to  recognisabiliiy  of  a  revelation  by  men,  as  such,  is 
entertained  with  sufficient  right.  It  has  actually  been  asserted  that,  even 
if  we  grant  the  probability  of  revelation,  no  Prophet  or  Apostle  possessed 
an  infallible  criterion  by  which  he  could  distinguish  it,  either  from  his  own 
thought,  or  from  demoniac  inspirations.  The  answer  to  this  charge  is  not  far 
to  seek.  If  God  can  give  a  revelation,  He  can  also,  without  doubt,  make  it  so 
plainly  recognisable  as  such,  that  he  who  receives  it  will  not  have  the 
slightest  shadow  of  doubt  on  this  point.  Naturally  we  cannot  now  at  once 
show  how  He  did  this  in  each  particular  case ;  and  the  first  interpreters 
of  revelation  were  called  to  live  in  faith  on  the  word  of  God  which  they  had 
received  ;  much  which  to  their  consciousness  was  absolutely  incontestable, 
might  perhaps  be  communicated  by  them  to  others  but  imperfectly  or  not  at 
all.  On  the  other  hand,  however,  each  truth .  had  undoubtedly  its  own 
clearness,  and  we  hear  interpreters  constantly  distinguish,  with  the  utmost 
soberness,  between  the  utterances  of  their  own  consciousness 10  and  those 
of  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  :  and  ofttimes  a  prophetic  word  is  made  manifest 
as  Divine  by  its  issue.11  The  ideas  called  torth  by  re\  elation,  in  the  spirit  of 
Apostle  or  Prophet,  were  not  completely  strange  and  unheard  of  to  them,  but 
they  are  usually  connected  with  that  which  was  already  known  and  granted. 
As  for  ourselves,  it  is  true  that  we  cannot  sharply  define  in  this  domain  the 
limits  of  the  merely  human  and  the  really  Divine;  but  though  we  c'o  not 
always  know  where  these  lie,  we  know,  notwithstanding,  that  these  exist, 
and  also  that  there  are  things  which  lie  on  this  side,  and  not  on  that  side 
of  these  limits.  As  for  what  may  in  many  special  cases  be  doubtful,  we 
meet  in  Holy  Scripture  with  a  number  of  words  and  deeds  which  rise,  not 
only  above  our  consciousness  and  faculties,  but  above  those  of  all  men. 
Besides,  where  the  Divine  really  reveals  itself,  it  there  addi  esses  itself  with  its 
own  peculiar  force  to  the  spirit  which  is  capable  of  receiving  it  Certainly, 
where  men  obstinately  deny  the  Supranatural,  there  men  cut  themselves  on' 
from  the  probability  of  recognising  the  revelation  of  the  Supranatural  as 
Divine.  Men  will  then,  even  as  to  the  most  impressive  signs,  only  say, 

9  John  vii.  17  ;  viii.  47  ;  xviii.  37  ;   i  Cor,  ii.  12     14  ;  I  John  iv.  6. 

10  I  Cor.  vii.  10,  12,  25. 

11  Jer.  xxviii.  15 — 17. 


ITS   REALITY.  125 

Astonishing,  but  never  Divine;  because  the  premises  for  this  acknowledg- 
ment are  wanting.  But,  then,  they  are  like  the  man  who  has  placed  a 
handkerchief  over  his  eyes,  and  is  thus  utterly  unable  to  see  the  sun, 
even  by  its  own  light.  We  naturally  do  not  claim  any  other  recognisability 
for  revelation,  than  one  by  those  whose  eyes  are  properly  opened.  For  these 
its  reality,  i.e.,  its  Divinity,  is  sufficiently  shown  by  reasons,  found  not 
without,  but  in  itself.  We  treat  first  of  the  external  proofs ;  then  of  the 
internal;  afterwards  of  the  connexion  of  both  ;  and  lastly  we  look  at  the 
testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  the  seal  and  crown  of  the  whole. 

1 .  i .  The  founding  of  Christianity  by  a  crucified  Nazarene  at  once  arouses, 
and  to  a  certain  extent  justifies,  the  supposition  that  we  are  here  on  another 
domain  than   that  of  the  merely  natural  course  of  things.     That  Jesus 
Christ  lived  and  died  under  Pontius  Pilate,  is  a  fact,  which  is  demonstrated 
by  the  evidence  of  the  heathen  and  Jewish  writers,  as  also  is  the  fact  that 
the  preaching  of  His  Gospel  met  with  a  completely  unheard-of  reception 
among  Jews  and  heathen,  and  in  a  relatively  short  time  has  transformed 
the  face  of  a  great  part  of  the  moral  world.     This  astonishing  event  can 
only   be   explained,    if  not   merely  His  word  and  person  made  a  quite 
unusual  impression  ;   but  if,   besides,   there  occurred   something   in    His 
life,  which  could  in   such  eyes  outweigh  the  disgrace  of  the  cross.     As 
such  a  fact  appears  the  Resurrection  of  the  Lord, — i.e.,  the  full  revelation 
in  Him  of  the  Supranatural.     Deny  it,  and — as  will  be  shown  hereafter — 
the  existence  of  the  Christian  Church  remains  an  enigma.     Hitherto,  at 
least,  no  attempt  to  explain  Christianity  as  the  merely  natural  product  of 
its  time  has  succeeded.     He  who  cannot  give  a  natural  explanation  must 
accept  a  supranatural,  or  rest  in  the  confession  of  a  not  innocent  ignorance. 
The  principiitm  rationis  sufficientis  pleads  for  the  cause  which  we  advocate.13 

2.  A  glance  at  the  careful  preparation  of  the  Jews  and  the  heathen  for 
Christianity  strengthens  the  suppositions  already  suggested.     A  diligent  in- 
vestigation of  history  shows  ever  again  how  this  is  based  entirely  on  a  king- 
dom of  God ;  so  that  Christ,  in  the  fullest  sense,  may  be  called  the  centre 
of  the  history  of  the  world.     One  of  the  most  eminent  historians  of  last 
century  gave  his  testimony  to  this  in  a  manner  which  is  an  honour  to  him, 
no  less  than  to  the  Gospel :  "  The  light  which  shone  round  Paul  on  his 
way  to  Damascus  was  not  more  surprising  to  him  than  what  I  suddenly 
saw,  the  fulfilling  of  all  expectations,   the  summit  of  all  philosophy,  the 
explanation  of  all  revolutions,  the  key  to  all  seeming  contradictions  in 
the  material  and  spiritual  world,  life  and  immortality"  (J.  v.  Muller).     We 
shall  treat  of  this  subject  afterwards,  when  we  are  discussing  the  "  fulness 
of  the  time."     At  present  we  only  observe  how  the  oft-repeated  question, 
"Why  has  a  revelation  which  seems  so  indispensable,  appeared  so  late?" 
finds  in  this  very  phenomenon  its  satisfactoiy  so'ution.     That  which  is 
most  noble  in  the  natural  and  spiritual  world   usually  is  developed  most 
slowly,  and  only  appears  after  a  long-continued  preparation. 

12  Compare  the  essay  of  C.  ULLMANN  (which,  though  often  ridiculed,  has  never  yet  been 
refuted),  entitled  Was  setzt  die  Stiftung  des  Christenlh.  durch  einen  Gekraizigti'n  rot-cms  ? 
reprinted  from  the  Stud.  u.  Krif.,  in  the  pamphlet  Historisch  oder  Mythisch  (1838), 
pp.  1—40. 


126  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

3.  Of  not  less  import  is  the  successful  fvteniion,  careful  />rwrra (ion,  and 
•  ful  vindication  of  Christianity.       The    fulfilment  of   the   parables  of 

UK  I  th'-  leaven  gives  indubitable  testimony  to  the 
Divinity  of  the  Gospel,  the  more  so  if  we  glance  at  the  spiritual  character 
of  that  Gospel,  the  violent  opposition  made  to  it,  the  wrakne>>  of  its 
;u  I  he  rents  and  the  greatness  of  the  triumph  which  was  gained,  Kven  an 

' -ever  must  confess  that  "the   Gospel    preached    by   persons   of  no 

lame,   no  o!  ic.'tion,  no    eloquence,    and    under   cruel    persecution,    and 

:mn  aid,   nevertheless  established  itself  in  a  short  time 

.  :r  the  world.  This  is  a  fact  which  is  undeniable,  and  proves  it  to  be 
the  work  of  God"  (I'ayle,  art.  Mahomet).  The  attempts"  to  explain  this 
phenomenon  in  a  natural  way  have  utterly  failed.1*  The  difference  between 
Christianity  and  Islamism  is  too  great  to  justify  an  appeal  to  the  rapid 
spread  of  Islamism.  Even  error  may  spread  and  obtain  credence  with 
wonderful  rapidity,  but  it  cannot  possibly  maintain  itself  under  the  most 
unfavourable  circumstances,  unless  it  bears  within  itself  a  proper  element  of 
truth.  That  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  met  with  such  fell  opposition,  has 
not  disappeared  from  the  earth  without  leaving  any  trace  of  its  existence, 
cannot  possibly  be  explained  from  human  wisdom  an  I  strength.11  Kvi- 
dently  God  has  made  the  cause  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  His  own.  The 
whole  history  of  Christianity  is  a  history  of  struggle,  but  of  triumph  too, 
which,  even  in  the  midst  of  the  apostacy  of  these  days,  constantly  causes 
men  to  tremble  for  the  lot  of  its  opponents. 

4.  In  addition  to  these  we  must  by  no  means  omit  the  beneficmt  influence 
of  Christianity.     This  testimony  will  first  show  itself  in  its  full  force  when 
the  Kingdom  of  God  shall  be  completed,  but  even  now  its  materials  may 
be  gathered  everywhere.     It  is  true,  even  atrocities    have  been  committed 
in  the  name  of  Christianity.     4i  Christianity,    this  is   your  work  1 "   cried 
Voltaire,  with  a  tragic  air,  as  he  looked  on   so  many  pages  stained  with 
blood  and  tears.     But  against  these    there  are  far  more  which  testify  of 
inestimable  blessings,  and  we  cannot  at  any  rate  attribute  to  the  Founder  of 
the   Church    its   sins.     We   must   think  here,  though  only  mentioning  is 
allowed,  of  the  blessed  influence  of  Christianity  on  Family  Life,  Society, 
State,  Civilisation,  Art,  Science,  Philosophy,  and  the  entire  Life  of  man  and 
mankind  ;18  and  besides,  of  all    which  the  history  of  missions'7  tells  as  to 
the  renewing  power  of  the  word   of  taith.     Nor  must  we  by  any  means 
forget  how  in  this  domain  a  great  part  of  the  most  precious  of  the  seed  is 
hidden  from  the  short-  sighted  eye,  yet  every  now  and  then  is  revealed  in  a 
surprising  manner,  aad  then,  after  all,  ask  where  we  can  find  a  parallel  to 
that  which,  in  all  these  respects,  the  history  of  God's  kingdom  proclaims. 

5.  All  these  historic  evidences,  when  elucidated  and  properly  combined, 
would  uncoabtedly  be  sufficient,  if  not  to  create,  at  least  to  justify,  a  well- 


11  r.ibbon,  etc. 

"  See,  inter  alia,  the  essay  of  K.  F.  Seltenreich  on  this  subject,  in  the  publications  of 
the  Hujue  Society  'iSl6). 

u  Acts  v.  38,  39. 

1J  Comp.  II.  C.ric,  Die  -n'eltnm^taltende  Kraft  da  Christenth.,  in  the  periodical  Der 
Bfut eis  iles  Glauhfns  (iSoS),  p.  2<)3,  fi/v. 

17  Coiup.  N.  1'oULAi.N,  L'(£.uvreda  Missions  £vatts:et.  (iS6/> 


ITS  REALITY.  127 

grounded  conviction  of  the  reality  of  revelation,  if  it  -were  not  that  the 
cry,  louder  than  any  of  these  voices,  "  Away  with  these  miracles  of  the 
Gospel,"  was  heard  on  all  sides,  especially  in  our  days.  It  is  but  too  true, 
the  domain  of  miracles,  "  formerly  a  garden  of  exotic  plants,  but  now  a 
field  of  thistles  "  (Lange),  for  believers  and  Apologists,  presents  difficulties 
which  require  an  express  discussion.  The  days  are  gone  by  when  a  simple 
appeal  to  predictions  and  miracles  seemed  almost  enough  to  prove  the 
Divinity  of  the  Gospel  And  yet  we  hope  that  the  days  are  now  still 
far  distant  when  Christian  Apologetics  shall  rashly  and  proudly  scorn 
the  assistance  which  these  extraordinary  facts,  properly  looked  at  and  used, 
offer  to  her  in  her  good  fight.  It  has  only  to  take  care  not  to  sever  such 
phenomena  from  their  historical  ground  and  context,  in  order  to  look  at 
them  wholly  by  themselves.  Miracles  and  predictions  are  no  proofs  for 
rei'clatwn,  when  added  to  it  from  without,  but  co-elements  of  revelation  itself, 
"which  in  their  way  testify  to  the  Divinity  of  its  origin  and  contents. 

6.  As  we  are  treating  the  question  of  miracles,  (a)  the  idea  of  miracle  natu- 
rally comes  the  very  first  in  our  discussion.  Denoted  by  different  names 
in  the  Bible  (tfaiVara,  0aivid<na,  irapdSofa,  etc.),  miracle  immediately  suggests 
something  which  differs  entirely  from  the  usual  course  of  things,  and 
therefore  excites  a  not  unnatural  surprise.  This  element  of  the  unusual 
is,  however,  only  a  part  of  the  notion,  and  the  properly  called  wonder 
(miraculum)  must  be  distinguished  from  that  which  seems  to  us  very  won- 
derful (mirabile,  miraculous).  While  this  latter  has  a  mere  subjective 
charac'er,  and  directs  itself  purely  to  the  senses,  we  have  to  do  with  the 
objective  character  of  the  former,  which  meets  our  consciousness  at  the  same 
time  as  a  revelation  of  a  higher  power.18  It  is  certainly  difficult  to  give  here  a 
right  definition,  but  it  is  not  difficult  to  indicate  the  cause  of  this  inconve- 
nience. A  real  miracle  is  nothing  less  than  a  direct  Dii-ine  act ;  but  God's 
mode  of  operation  is  to  us  as  mysterious  as  His  existence  and  the  nature 
of  His  relation  to  this  finite  world.  If  there  is  much  already  in  His  ordinary 
agency  which  we  cannot  understand,  how  much  more  when  we  see  Him 
act  in  a  completely  extraordinary  manner!  Ever}7  miracle  has  a  side 
which  we  see,  the  fact  in  itself;  but  also  a  side  which  we  do  not  see,  the 
operating  cause.  Can  it  be  otherwise  but  that  definitions  should  differ, 
while  not  one  is  possible  which  does  not  leave  room  for  objection  ?  Yet 
every  one  knows  what  he  must  think  of  when  he  hears  of  miracles ; 
that  word  offers  a  series  of  facts  to  his  mind,  which  he  tries  to  combine 
as  far  as  possible  under  one  notion.  A  miracle  is  an  entirely  extraordi- 
nary phenomenon  in  the  domain  of  natural  or  spiritual  life,  which  cannot  be 
explained  from  the  course  cf  nature  as  it  is  known  to  us,  and  must  therefore 
hai'e  been  brought  about  by  a  direct  operation  of  God's  almighty  will,  in  order 
to  attain  a  definite  object.  Thus  God  Himself  is  at  work  in  a  miracle,  but 
in  a  manner  differing  from  the  usual.  "  The  character  of  miracles  taken 
in  the  strictest  sense  is  this,  that  they  cannot  be  explained  by  the  nature 
of  created  things"  (Leibnitz).  But  it  is  this  very  conviction  which  makes 
the  man  who  believes  in  a  living,  almighty,  free-working  God  here  exclaim 
with  awe,  "This  is  the  finder  of  God." 


128  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

(£)  Only  where  this  belief  is  found,  can  the  possibility  of  miracle  be 
explained  to  a  certain  extent.  It  is  lost  labour  to  discuss  this  possibility 
with  the  man  who  holds  a  Deistic  or  Pantheistic  conception  of  God. 
Hence  it  arises  that  the  Naturalism  and  Positivism  of  the  present  time 
simply  presupposes  the  impossibility  of  miracle,  and  does  not  consider  it 
worth  while  to  treat  further  of  the  subject.  From  this  standpoint  the 
historical  criticism  may  not  recognise  as  credible  any  narrative  in  which 
miracles  are  found ;  and  even  though  the  experimental  proof  required  on 
that  side  were  to  be  successful,  how  could  a  belief  in  miracles  take  root  but 
upon  the  soil  of  Theism  ?  "  Historical  sciences  take  for  granted  that  no  super- 
natural agent  troubles  the  march  of  humanity  ;  that  there  is  no  free  being 
superior  to  man,  to  whom  we  might  attribute  an  appreciable  part  in  the 
moral  guiding  of  things,  any  more  than  in  the  material  government  of  the 
universe.  As  for  me,  I  think  that  there  is  not  in  the  universe  any  intelli- 
gence superior  to  that  of  man.  Absolute  justice  and  absolute  reason  only 
manifests  itself  in  man ;  considered  as  outside  mankind  this  absolute  is 
merely  an  abstraction.  The  Infinite  only  exists  when  it  is  clothed  in  a 
form"  (Renan).  If  this  be  not  Atheism,  what  is  it?  In  truth,  we  can 
only  consider  it  as  a  happy  inconsistency  in  the  supporters  of  modern 
Naturalism,  which  does  more  honour  to  their  heart  than  to  their  head,  that  the 
denial  of  miracle  will  still  assume  a  religious  character.  From  the  opposite 
standpoint  we  shall  scarcely  create  any  difficulty  in  saying  with  Augustine, 
"  Dandum  est  Deo,  Eum  aliquid  facere  posse,  quod  nos  investigare  non 
possumus." 

The  general  belief  in  miracles  among  all  nations  in  itself  makes  us 
incline  to  recognise  their  possibility.  To  the  natural  consciousness  of 
God  the  idea  at  least  seems  to  have  nothing  absurd  in  it.  How  would 
it  be  possible  to  grant  to  man  a  certain  degree  of  freedom,  and  to  deny 
this  to  God  ?  If  we  state  that  the  conceptions,  Law  of  nature  and  Will  of  God, 
so  completely  and  entirely  cover  one  another,  that  an  operation  of  God's 
will  beyond  the  fixed  course  of  these  laws  is  utterly  inconceivable,  then 
with  consistent  reasoning  nothing  at  least  will  be  left  of  the  personality  of 
God.  He  who  really  recognises  this  is  forced  to  confess  with  one  of  the 
greatest  thinkers  of  our  age,  *'  I  sincerely  reverence  the  laws  of  nature,  and 
heartily  rejoice  when  man  learns  to  know  them  better.  God  Himself 
has  indeed  submitted  to  man  the  powers  of  nature  ;  but  He  never  sub- 
mitted to  him  Himself,  or  made  Himself  subject,  as  well  as  His  freedom 
and  His  almighty  will.  When  God  organised  the  laws  of  nature,  He  could 
not  relegate  to  them  the  operation  of  His  causality,  and  so  place  in  them  a 
barrier  to  His  own  free  working  "  (Rothe).  Neither  His  wisdom  nor  His 
unchangeableness  stand  in  the  way  of  such  an  operation  of  His  power  and 
freedom  (§31,  4);  and  least  of  all  does  an  accurate  conception  of  the 
laws  of  nature.  Is  that  idea  indeed  anything  else  but  an  abstraction  of 
the  thinking  spirit?  We  observe  the  usual  rule  by  which  the  facts,  in  so 
far  as  they  have  been  noticed  till  now,  commonly  happen,  and  express  this 
rule  in  a  certain  formula  ;  but  new  facts  may  show  themselves,  by  which  it 
is  at  once  seen  that  the  formula  was  too  narrow  in  its  limits.  The  whole 
idea  of  a  law  of  nature  is  indeed  elastic,  and  as  long  as  we  do  not  know 
all  the  phenomena,  the  word  Impossible  is  premature.  And  never  do 


ITS  REALITY.  I2Q 

we  require  the  belief  that  a  miracle  should  conflict  with  the  whole  of 
nature  and  all  her  laws.  Non  pugnant  contra  naturam,  sed  contra  nobis 
cogJiitam  naturam  (Augustine),  and  above  this  stands  highest  the  will  of 
Him  who  works  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  His  will.  Besides, 
the  law  of  nature  which  is  known  to  us  is  not  broken  or  abrogated  by 
miracle,  but  only  superseded  in  a  certain  point  by  a  sovereign  Cause. 
There  is  no  talk  here  of  conflict,  because  the  law  in  itself  remains  intact, 
but  is  only  in  a  special  case  set  on  one  side  :  the  miracle  takes  place,  not 
in  opposition  to  it,  but  simply  beyond  it,  perhaps  by  a  higher  law  not  yet 
known  to  us.  When  the  free  movement  of  my  hand  casts  a  stone  into  the 
air,  which  without  it  would  fall  to  the  ground,  what  law  of  nature  is  there 
contravened  ?  "  Miracles  belong  to  a  higher  order  of  things,  which  is  a 
nature  also  "  (Nitzsch).  It  is  indeed  as  if  nothing  could  be  more  fatal  to 
nature  than  to  come  into  so  close  a  connexion  with  her  Creator  and  Lord. 
Do  we  not  everywhere  see  the  sphere  of  the  higher  life  of  nature  appear  in 
and  beside  a  lower  one,  without  the  possibility  of  explaining  the  first  by 
the  last  ?  Is  then  really  the  animal  world  already  explained  as  the  merely 
natural  result  of  the  plant  world,  man  as  the  natural  result  of  the  animal 
world  ?  and  if  not,  is  it  then  utterly  inconceivable  that  One  should  appear 
among  mankind,  who  is  not  to  be  explained  by  mankind  only,  and  may  be 
called  the  absolute  miracle  in  its  history?  and  if  so,  why  should  this  One 
have  no  power  to  work  miracles  ?  "  Unnatural,"  men  repeat ;  but  they 
forget  then  that  nature,  in  her  actual  condition,  is  under  the  power  of  sin, 
and  has  a  King,  whose  will  is  to  renew  and  release  her.  If  the  human  spirit 
can  work  dynamically  on  matter,  then  the  sinless  One,  in  whom  dwells  the 
fulness  of  the  Spirit,  must  have  been  able  to  do  so  in  a  manner  which  infi- 
nitely exceeds  the  usual  course  of  things.  Once  more;  whoever  boldly 
repeats  here  the  word  "  impossible,"  in  principle  denies  the  belief  in  a 
living  God,  in  a  properly  so  called  creation  of  the  world,  in  providence,  and 
the  hearing  of  prayer.  Against  such  a  precipice  of  negation  we  have 
nothing  to  do  but  to  warn  ;  against  such  a  purposed  unbelief  we  can 
only  protest  with  all  seriousness  in  the  name  of  science  and  conscience. 
It  is  both  satisfactory  and  remarkable  that  so  many  natural  philosophers  are 
on  this  point  more  cautious  than  some  theologians  and  philosophers.  Even 
if  the  Empiric  philosopher  had  proved  that  a  real  miracle  had  never  been  ob- 
served, he  would  not  be  able  to  proclaim  the  doctrine  of  this  absolute  impos- 
sibility, without  stepping  unlawfully  into  a  domain  which  is  closed  to  him ; 
and  the  Christian  is  allowed  to  make  an  appeal  from  a  narrow  experience  to 
one  on  a  more  extended  scale,  that  of  his  own  spiritual  life  not  excluded. 

(c)  The  recognisability  of  miracles  cannot  be  denied,  any  more  than 
their  possibility,  at  least  by  him  who  brings  to  his  investigation  a  belief  in 
the  living  God  (§  31,  4).  It  is  true  that  a  terrible  deception  in  this  domain 
is  conceivable,  even  presaged  in  Matt.  xxiv.  24,  and  ofttimes  effected.  But 
the  criterion  of  the  real  miracle  lies  not  merely  in  the  act  being  in  itself 
unusual  and  unheard  of,  but,  at  the  same  time,  in  the  moral  character  of 
the  worker  of  miracles,  and  in  the  Godly  aim  of  his  act.  No  miracle  of  a 
false  prophet  can  make  a  lie  truth. 19  And  the  Scripture  narrations  of 

19  Deut.  xiii.  l — 3. 


130  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

miracles  on  the  whole  obviously  show  such  higher  characteristic  (the 
healing  of  the  one  born  blind,  raising  of  the  dead,  etc.).  Besides,  the 
deeds  of  God,  as  well  as  His  words,  are  directed,  not  merely  to  the  senses, 
but  also  to  the  heart  and  conscience  of  man,  and  furnish  an  internal  evi- 
dence which  cannot  be  doubted.  Shall  man,  who  is  allied  to  God,  possess  no 
means  at  all  by  which  he,  at  least  by  continued  examination,  can  distinguish 
the  Divine  from  the  demoniacal  in  this  domain  ?  No  omniscience  indeed 
is  needed  to  determine  whether  anything  which  occurred  was  or  was  not 
according  to  the  fixed  course  of  nature.  True,  the  border-line  where  the 
natural  ceases  in  many  cases  is  difficult  to  indicate,  still  we  know  that  there 
is  a  border-line.  It  is  as  with  the  colours  of  the  rainbow, — they  melt  into 
one  another,  and  yet  no  one  will  mistake  one  for  another.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary to  know  the  whole  code  of  laws  in  order  to  assert  that  in  one  special 
case  a  prescript  of  the  code  has  been  departed  from.  Whoever,  on  the 
other  hand,  affirms  that  he  would  rather  deny  than  assent  to  the  evidence 
of  his  own  senses,  and  that  of  a  thousand  spectators,  that,  e.g.,  a  dead 
man  had  been  raised  from  the  dead,  cannot  properly  be  placed  on  any 
other  list  than  that  which  contains  the  victims  of  an  irremediable  "  ide"e 
fixe."  By  such  views  he  may  certainly  withhold  himself  and  others  from 
faith,  but  cannot  possibly  prevent  God's  activity  or  man's  observation. 

(d)  When  we  investigate  the  reality  of  miracles,  it  is  important  to  distin- 
guish between  that  of  the  sacred,  and  specially  of  the  evangelic  narratives 
in  general,  and  that  of  any  single  narrative  of  a  miracle,  regarded  by  itself 
and  apart.  That,  so  far  as  the  former  is  concerned,  the  first  century  of  Chris- 
tianity was  a  century  of  miracles,  which  then  gradually  disappeared,  is 
proved  by  a  series  of  unsuspected  and  clear  testimonies.20  The  expressions 
of  St.  Paul  in  particular,  even  in  his  epistles  of  undeniable  authenticity, 
leave  no  doubt  on  this  point.21  They  excite  the  greater  confidence  because 
they  proceed  from  a  man  not  naturally  given  to  the  miraculous,22  and  are 
only  incidentally  mentioned,  without  any  apologetic  intention.  He  who 
thus  speaks  is  himself  a  moral  miracle  in  history,  not  explained,  nor  expli- 
cable, unless  a  real  appearing  of  the  risen  Christ  was  vouchsafed  to  him, 
as  he  testifies  repeatedly  and  with  the  greatest  certitude.2*  If  we  must  now 
— as  will  be  further  shown  afterwards,  on  the  evidence  of  his  experience  too 
— grant  that  the  dead  Nazarene  has  risen  in  a  bodily  form  from  the  grave, 
then  is  the  supranatural  actually  revealed,  and  miracle  thus  in  principle 
maintained.  Indeed,  it  cannot  for  a  moment  appear  incredible  to  us,  that, 
with  regard  to  Him,  who  is  the  Lord  of  Life  and  Conqueror  of  Death, 
great  and  matchless  miracles  should  have  been  done  by  Him  or  worked  in 
Him.  He  Himself  appears  before  us  as  the  greatest  miracle  in  the  moral 
and  religious  domain, — the  Sun,  of  which  all  separate  miracles  are  only  so 
many,  to  a  certain  extent,  natural  radiations.  This  shining  sun  cannot, 
however,  be  conceived  of  without  its  morning  dawn  or  evening  splendour, 
proportionate  to  the  brightness  of  its  light  So  before  and  after  "the  great 

»  Cf.  THOLUCK,  Ueber  die  Wunder  der  Kathol.  Kirche,  u.  s.  w.,  in  the  first  volume 
of  his  Vermise hte  Schriften  (1839),  p.  28,  sqq. 
21  Rom.  xv.  18,  19 ;  i  Cor.  xii.  10,  28  ;  Gal.  iii.  5  ;  Heb.  ii. 
a  Phil.  ii.  27  ;  2  Tim.  iv.  20. 
*  I  Cor.  ix.  I  ;  xv.  8. 


ITS   REALITY.  131 

miracle  of  Christ's  appearance  in  the  world  are  the  miracles  of  the  Pro- 
phetic and  Apostolic  period.  Here,  too,  in  order  to  master  the  whole 
sphere,  we  do  our  best  by  starting  from  its  centre. 

While  in  this  way  the  reality  of  the  Scriptural  miracles  in  general  can  be 
proved — and  we  may  say  that  the  rise  and  first  victory  of  Christianity 
would  be  inconceivable,  if  no  such  signs  at  all  had  been  given — it  is  still 
self-evident  that  the  credibility  of  each  separate  miracle  is  not  yet  thereby 
made  out.  This  is  shown  only  by  means  of  an  express  historico-critical 
investigation,  which,  if  it  is  to  deserve  the  name,  must  be  quite  impartial, 
and  entirely  free  from  arbitrary  presuppositions.  If  on  so-called  philosophic 
grounds  the  impossibility  of  miracle  be  tacitly  accepted  as  a  starting-point, 
the  fate  of  many  a  narrative  can  be  easily  guessed,  and  an  inevitable 
wrong  is  done  to  the  investigation  itself.  It  is  not  allowed  to  ask  philo- 
sophy beforehand  to  determine  what  may  be  historical  or  not.  First  of 
all,  then,  we  are  invited  to  a  criticism  of  the  sources,  the  so-called  subjec- 
tive criticism.  The  question  here  is  whether  they  are  derived  from  well- 
instructed,  truth-loving,  competent  witnesses?  This  first  question,  however, 
is  not,  even  in  the  most  favourable  circumstances,  the  only  one ;  to  the 
subjective  criticism  the  objective  must  be  joined,  that  of  the  facts  them- 
selves which  are  related.  The  question  whether  the  narrators  were  not  only 
trustworthy,  but  whether  the  narratives  were  credible,  must  be  put  and 
answered.  But  here  the  experience  of  our  days  must  be  by  no  means  the 
highest,  much  less  the  only  test  of  our  judgment ;  that  which  does  not 
happen  now,  may,  nevertheless,  have  happened  in  former  times,24  and 
the  utterances  of  the  experience  of  former  epochs  ought  therefore  to  be 
consulted.  The  narrative,  too,  must  be  compared  with  all  we  know  con- 
cerning the  person,  acts,  and  works  and  sufferings  of  the  miracle-worker; 
the  internal  character  of  the  event,  in  union  with  the  aim  ascribed  to  it, 
must  also  be  tested ;  its  result,  too,  must  also  show  whether  we  have  to 
think  here  of  a  natural  cause  or  not.  When  considering  particularly  the 
miracles  of  our  Lord,  the  objective  criticism  must  pay  special  heed  to  their 
inseparable  connexion  with  words M  whose  genuineness  hardly  admits  of 
doubt ;  to  their  superiority  above  those  of  all  other  messengers  of  God,  in 
connexion  with  a  sublimity  of  self-consciousness  not  to  be  found  elsewhere ; 
and  not  last,  to  the  surprising  difference  between  the  canonical  and  apocry- 
phal miracles,  which  testify  so  plainly  in  favour  of  the  former  (J.  J.  van 
Toorenenbergen,  P.  H.  Hugenholtz).  Finally,  we  must  most  earnestly 
examine  the  question  whether  the  denial  in  principle  of  all  miracles  does 
not  lead  to  much  greater  difficulties  than  the  method  of  such  an  impartial 
historico-critical  investigation.  The  reality  of  miracles  will  on  all  these 
grounds  be  the  more  readily  accepted,  the  better  we  understand  that  in 
connexion  with  God's  counsel,  and  the  whole  personality  of  the  Saviour, 
they  may  be  called  natural,  and  even  absolutely  necessary. 

(e)  We  have  already  in  principle  answered  the  question  as  to  the  best  ex- 
planation of  the  Scriptural  miracles.  Miracle,  as  the  proper  and  personal  act 
of  the  incomprehensible  God,  can  never  be  fully  explained,  but  only  under- 

K  Cf.  H.  E.  VINKE,  Deempirievan  Jezus'  Apostden  en  veniere  Tijdgcnootcn,  enz.  (1864). 
~  As,  t.g.,  Mark  viii.  17 — 21. 

K   2 


132  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

stood  and  conceived  to  a  certain  degree.  That  end  is,  however,  attained 
neither  by  the  Natural  and  Mythical,  nor  by  the  Allegorical  and  Symbolical 
interpretation.  We  shall  afterwards  show  (§91)  why  in  particular  the  two 
first  methods  cannot  be  applied  to  the  domain  of  the  Evangelical  history. 
Here  we  place  against  all  arbitrariness  the  demand  that  the  explanation 
aimed  at  must  be  a  purely  grammatico-historical  one  in  all  the  force  of 
that  word.  Thus  will  it  be  at  once  truly  psychological  and  theological. 
But  above  all  we  must,  in  our  treatment  of  miracle,  maintain  the  Christo- 
centric  characterof  Dogmatics  (§  vii.  3).  It  is  by  the  light  given  to  us  in  the 
person  and  words  of  the  Lord  that  we  first  see  the  full  light  rise  on  His 
own  miracles,  as  well  as  on  those  of  His  Prophets  and  Apostles.  Contexts 
will  very  often  explain  much  which,  taken  by  itself,  would  be  absolutely 
incredible. 

(/)  The  demonstrative  value  of  miracles  has  been  partly  misunderstood 
and  exaggerated ;  and  this  latter  particularly  by  the  earlier  Supranaturalism, 
which  regarded  miracles  and  predictions  as  the  very  chief  evidences  of  the 
Divinity  of  revelation.  It  is  clear,  however,  that  the  Lord  Himself  never 
attributed  such  a  high  import  to  His  miracles,  but  always  considered  faith 
founded  on  His  words  as  of  higher  value  than  that  grounded  on  signs.26 
Notwithstanding  the  most  astonishing  signs,  many  of  His  contemporaries 
remained  unbelieving,  and  in  any  case  these  signs  were  adapted  much 
more  to  the  wants  of  the  first  beholders  than  to  those  of  later  times. 
So  Luther  already  judged  rightly  when  he  said,  "  Such  signs,  therefore,  were 
done  that  the  Christian  Church  might  be  founded,  established,  and  ac- 
cepted. But  these  are  unimportant  and  almost  childish  signs  when  com- 
pared with  the  sublime  wonders  which  Christ  unceasingly  works  in  His 
Church."  While  he  says  again,  that  God  must  "  allure  men  by  such  ex- 
ternal miracles,  as  children  are  tempted  by  apples  and  pears." — But  still 
this  does  not  give  us  the  right  to  estimate  the  value  and  evidential  force 
of  miracles  at  so  low  a  rate  as  has  been  done  by  many  in  our  days.  He 
who  asserts  that  Christ  Himself  attached  only  little  import  to  His  miracles, 
has  certainly  never  studied  carefully  such  expressions  as  those  in  Matt 
xi.  4,  5,  20—24  >  xii.  28,  39,  40  ;  John  y.  36;  x.  25,  37,  38 ;  xi.  41  ;  xiv. 
1 1  ;  xv.  24.  It  is  true,  the  works  to  which  Jesus  appealed  were  not  exclu- 
sively His  miracles.  Still  these  last  undoubtedly  were  understood  by  Him 
to  belong  to  them.  The  history  indeed  shows  that  not  a  few  were  led  to 
belief,  or  had  their  belief  strengthened,  by  their  means.  How  was  it  pos- 
sible that  facts  of  this  kind  should  have  been  done  without  being  of  deep, 
in  a  certain  sense  eternal,  import  ? — Against  both  these  extremes  we  come 
on  the  right  track  merely  by  observing  the  real  character  of  these  works  as 
signs  (ffiju^a,  rtpaTa),  Prodigium  =  porro  digium  (Hugo  of  St.  Victor), 
a  finger  pointing  to  him  who  works  the  sign.  It  is  not  as  an  external  cre- 
dential added  to  revelation,  but  as  itself  a  part  of  it,  that  a  miracle  proves 
the  Divine  mission  of  him  who  works  it ;  and  by  legitimate  consequence 
the  Divine  origin  of  the  word  which  he  proclaims.  That  even  a  well- 
established  miracle  cannot  by  itself  prove  the  truth  of  a  doctrine,  may  be 
safely  granted,  but  it  is  nevertheless  a  sign  that  God  is  with  him  who  does 

*  John  iv.  48  ;  x.  38  ;  xiv.  n. 


ITS   REALITY.  133 

such  signs.27  The  miracles  of  Jesus  must  be  decidedly  regarded  as  revela- 
tions of  His  glory,28  and,  at  the  same  time,  as  striking  symbols  of  the  salva- 
tion which  He  proffers  and  promises.29  Such  revelations  and  symbols 
were  of  course  originally  adapted  to  the  wants  of  the  first  witnesses;  but 
when  properly  established  and  understood,  they  retain  their  high  value 
for  all  after-time.  We  undoubtedly  in  our  days  believe  rather  in  miracles 
for  Christ's  sake,  than  in  Christ  for  the  miracles'  sake ;  but  a  miracle  may 
nevertheless  lead  to  belief  in  Him,  and  support  this  belief  against  sundry 
contradictions.  Christianity  legitimates  miracles  ;  but  miracles  also  furnish 
very  important  evidence  in  regard  to  Christianity  and  its  origin.  But  they 
do  this  only  when  they  are  not  looked  upon  as  isolated  facts,  but  in  con- 
nexion with  one  another,  in  union  with  the  person  of  the  miracle-worker, 
and  by  the  light  of  His  own  utterances. 

(§•)  The  objections  unceasingly  brought  against  the  so-called  evidential 
force  of  miracles,  after  what  we  have  said,  are  easily  encountered.  As  for 
the  philosophic  objections,  those  of  the  speculative  philosophy  fall  away 
when  the  theistic  conception  of  God  is  satisfactorily  maintained,  and  em- 
piric criticism  has  a  right  to  claim  that  so  surprising  a  departure  from  the 
usual  order  of  things  as  miracles  presuppose,  be  not  believed  without 
sufficient  grounds  but  in  no  case  has  it  the  right  to  say  here  "impossible ;" 
rather  does  the  saying,  "  The  true  is  not  always  the  probable,"  suit  better 
here.  If  the  experience  of  the  present  time  teaches  that  an  appeal  to 
miracles  is  often  a  hindrance  rather  than  a  benefit  to  the  sacred  cause  of 
faith,  this  indeed  is  a  charge  against  the  spirit  of  the  time,  but  by  no 
means  against  the  miracles  themselves.  More  than  one  who  declares  that 
he  does  not  require  these  supports  to  his  faith,  neither  knows  true  faith  nor 
himself.  The  remark  that  the  belief  in  miracle  is  in  direct  conflict  with 
the  modern  conception  of  the  world,  and  is  dwindling  away  with  the 
increase  of  civilisation,  justifies  without  doubt  a  doubly  accurate  criticism 
of  the  old  narratives  of  miracles,  but  also  of  the  new  cosmogony  itself; 
and  in  no  case  does  it  give  an  actual  right  to  consign  with  one  stroke  of 
the  pen  all  the  narratives  of  miracles  to  the  domain  of  imagination. 
N  ching  is  more  inexorable  than  a  fact,"  says  the  proverb,  and  the 
warning  which  the  Germans  give  against  that  which  they  call  "  emptying 
out  the  child  with  the  bath,"  may  in  our  case  be  both  timely  and  neces- 
sary. Finally,  he  who  asks  why  there  are  now  no  longer  miracles,  when 
they  are  more  than  ever  necessary,  must  not  forget,  so  far  as  he  is  right 
in  his  supposition,  that  we  cannot  in  any  case  make  any  claim  on  God; 
that  in  earlier  times  it  was  only  the  great  turning-points  of  the  history  of 
revelation  which  were  glorified  by  a  number  of  miracles  ;  and,  lastly,  that 
the  Christian  lives  in  the  hope  of  a  future,  which  promises  new  revelations 
of  God's  glory  both  in  the  natural  and  spiritual  worlds. 

The  historical  objections,  to  be  sure,  would  be  weightier  if  they  had 
unconditional  right,  but  they,  too,  to  no  small  extent,  rest  on  exaggeration 
and  misunderstanding.  It  is  said  (i)  that  the  sacred  writers  make  no 
special  distinction  between  ordinary  and  extraordinary  operations  of  God, 
since  they  always  attribute  everything  to  His  intervention.  But  though 

*i  John  iii.  2.  *  John  ii.  II.  »  John  vi.  35  ;  viii.  12 ;  xi.  25. 


134  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

they  do  not  place  prominently  in  the  front  a  sharply  defined  idea  of 
what  belongs  to  nature,  they  nevertheless  recognise  a  fixed  order  of 
nature  ; 3<)  and,  as  distinguished  from  this,  a  special  series  of  facts  called 
into  being  by  the  direct  intervention  of  God.31  '•  While  the  idea  of 
miracles  is  fixed,  the  mental  presentment  thereof  is  less  closely  defined  " 
(Kostlin).  It  is  asserted  (2)  that  the  sacred  writers  have  suffered 
themselves  to  be  carried  away  by  their  love  of  the  miraculous,  in  order 
to  adorn  their  own  narratives.  But  when  it  is  remarked  that  the 
Evangelists  {only  to  mention  these)  do  not  tell  of  any  miracle  of  the 
Baptist ; K  nor  of  the  infancy  and  childhood  of  Jesus  ;  that  we  never  hear 
the  disciples  ask  their  Master  to  work  a  miracle,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
see  Him  often  refuse  to  give  a  sign,  and  hear  the  desire  for  miracles 
sharply  rebuked  by  Him,  we  are  led  to  a  different  opinion.  (3)  As  far 
as  concerns  the  many  imaginary  miracles  of  the  heathen  religions, 
the  thoughtful  words  of  Pascal  are  always  applicable :  "  Instead  of 
concluding  that  there  are  no  true  miracles,  because  there  are  so  many 
false  ones,  we  must,  on  the  contrary,  say  that  there  are  certainly  true 
miracles,  because  there  are  so  many 'false  ones  ,  and  there  would  not  have 
been  any  false  miracles,  but  for  the  reason  that  there  are  true  miracles." 
Fina'ly,  if  we  are  asked  what  credence  must  be  given  to  those  many 
Christian  narratives  of  miracles,  e.g.,  of  the  middle  ages  and  the  Romis"h 
Church,  in  whose  favour,  as  it  seems,  so  much  trustworthy  evidence  has 
been  brought,  we  answer  that  a  blind  belief  is  as  unsuitable  as  a  systematic 
unbelief,  but  that  careful  investigation  remains  our  duty.  As  yet  we  are 
waiting  till  such  narratives  are  supported  by  proofs  as  clear  as  those  which 
support  the  narratives  of  the  New  Testament.  In  no  case  will  they  ever 
prove  anything  against  these ;  on  the  contrary,  the  comparison  tends 
more  to  the  advantage  than  to  the  injury  of  the  narratives  of  the  Holy 
Scripture. 

(h)  The  importance  of  this  question  as  to  miracles  must  not,  after  all  our 
discussion,  be  estimated  too  lightly.  It  is  a  question  of  principle,  and  also 
an  eminently  practical  one.  It  is  by  no  means  a  matter  of  indifference  for 
the  religious  and  Christian  life  to  know  whether  God  can  work  only  by 
natural  and  finite  causes,  or  whether  the  Spirit  of  the  Infinite  One  stands 
really  above  matter,  and  its  blind  necessity,  and  works  with  unlimited 
power  and  freedom.  He  who  denies  this  last,  cuts  away,  not  only  the 
Christian  belief  in  revelation,  but  also  the  main  artery  of  Ethics,  and  cannot 
possibly  always  avoid  the  precipice  of  the  Deification  of  Nature  and 
Atheism.  On  the  other  hand,  he  who  recognises  a  God  who  can  work 
miracles,  will  find  in  the  narratives  of  these  miracles  no  hindrance,  but  a 
finger-post  to  point  out  the  road  to  the  Christian  belief  in  revelation. 
Besides,  the  Christian  who  has  him  self  experienced  the  quickening  power 
of  God  in  prayer,  has  got  an  experimental  proof  of  the  truth  of  miracles 
in  the  spiritual  domain,  which  makes  its  complete  denial  in  the  system  of 
nature  utterly  impossible. 

Compare,  on  the  subject  of  miracles,  J.  J.  VAN  OOSTERZEE,  Leben  v.  Jez.  D.  I.  bl. 
*°  Gen.  viii.  22  ;  James  v.  7.  81  I  Kings  xvii.  I,  etc.  B  John  x.  41. 


ITS   REALITY.  135 

209,  etc.  ;  Het  Johannes- Evangelic  (1867),  p.  149,  etc.,  and  the  literature  quoted  there;  to 
this  must  be  added  J.  HIKZEL,  Ueber  das  Wundfr,  u.  s.  w.  (1863) ;  N.  POULAIN,  Un 
Ckiislianisme  sans  Dogma  et  sans  Miracles  (1864)  ;  CREMER,  Veber  d'.e  Wunder  in 
Zusammenh.  mit  der  Gottl.  O/enb.  (1865)  ;  F.  GODET,  De  Wunderen  des  Heeren  (1868)  ; 
M.  FUCHS,  Das  Wunder,  in  the  Ncun  Apologet.  Btitrage  (1869),  pp.  99 — 139;  TH. 
CHRISTLIEB,  a.  a.  0.  (1870),  pp.  318 — 391  ;  O.  FLUEGEL,  Das  Wunder  und  aie  Erkenn- 
barkeit  Gottes  (1871);  W.  BENDER,  Das  W  under-begriff  des  N.  T.,  eine  dogin.  Untersuchung. 
(1871) ;  J.  B.  MOZLEY,  On  Miracles,  Baxnpton  Lectures  for  1865. 

7.  The  predictions  which  are  usually  mentioned  along  with  miracles,  as 
the  principal  evidences  for  the  reality  of  revelation,  are,  on  their  part, 
miracles  of  Divine  omniscience,  joined  to  those  of  Divine  omnipotence 
and  sovereignty.  These  same  questions,  just  discussed,  arise  again  here, 
but,  after  what  we  have  already  said,  can  Le  treated  more  briefly. 

(a)  The  idea  of  predictions  has  its  root  in  that  of  Prophetism,  which  has 
been  elucidated  in  our  work  on  the  Biblical  Theology  of  the  Rew  Testament. 
By  prediction  we  understand  the  positive  announcement  of  some  still  future 
facts  of  revelation,  which  cannot  be  calculated  beforehand  by  the  natural 
understanding,  and  therefore  are  made  known  to  the  seer  by  direct  Divine 
intervention.  As  we  enter  on  this  domain,  we  must  here,  too,  be  on 
our  guard  against  two  opposite  extremes.  On  the  one  side,  that  of 
the  older  Supranaturalism,  which  almost  exclusively  limited  the  office  of 
the  Prophets  to  the  foretelling  of  all  kinds  of  future  chiefly  accidental 
things,  unexpectedly  confirmed  by  the  event ;  on  the  other  side,  that  ot  the 
modern  Naturalism,  which,  just  as  little  as  the  earlier  Rationalism,  will 
hear  of  proper  foretellings,  and  even  in  this  domain  will  admit  nothing 
which  cannot  be  explained  from  man  himself.  From  the  first  standpoint, 
the  relation  of  the  Prophets  to  the  present  is  underrated  ;  from  the  other, 
it  is  so  exaggerated  that  there  cannot  be  any  further  serious  thought  of 
revelation,  as  given  in  and  througn  them.  Both  these  representations  are  in 
conflict  with  a  number  of  facts  which  convim  ingly  prove,  on  the  one  hand, 
that  the  prophetic  perspective  was  rooted  in  the  present  and  the  past ;  on 
the  other,  that  it  cannot  possibly  be  explained  merely  and  entirely  thereby. 
Both  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  as  well  as  from  the  utterances  of  the  pro- 
phets themselves,  we  must  decide  that  the  word  of  revelation  possessed 
undoubtedly  an  historical  and  psychological  point  of  union  in  the  sphere  and 
character  of  its  chosen  interpreters;  but  that  nevertheless  their  knowledge  of 
the  future  was  derived  from  a  higher  source  than  that  of  their  merely  natural 
consciousness.  "  We  must  not  regard  prophecy  merely  as  a  Divine  spark 
of  light,  which  springs  from  the  present,  shaped  by  God,  but  as  a  heavenly 
light  which  God  lets  fall  in  the  dark  paths  of  history,  to  point  out  whither 
they  lead.  Prophecy  derives  its  wings,  which  carry  it  far  beyond  the  present, 
not  from  history,  but  from  the  omniscient  Gcd,  who  reveals  Himself  each 
time  according  to  His  will,  and  man's  needs.  If  history  conceals  always 
within  its  bosom  the  next  step,  God  has  the  beginning,  middle,  and  end 
of  all  history  in  His  bosom,  and  prophecy  sees  just  so  much  of  this  as  God 
reveals  to  the  eye  of  the  spirit.  So  heaven  opens  to  the  prophet  above 
earth,  and  he  does  not  listen  to  the  grass  which  grows  in  history,  but  is  a 
hearer  of  the  Divine  speech,  and  an  interpreter  of  the  Divine  thoughts  " 
(Delitzsch). 


136  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

It  is  generally  known  that  the  Old  Testament  especially  contains 
a  number  of  these  predictions  :  as,  e.g.,  the  prophetic  announcement 
of  the  plagues  of  Egypt ;  the  destruction  of  the  house  of  Eli ;  the 
circumstances  after  the  anointing  of  Saul  as  king  ;  the  prolongation  of 
Hezekiah's  life  for  fifteen  years  ;  the  seventy  years'  exile  ;  the  seventy 
weeks  of  Daniel,  etc.  Accurate  exegesis  and  unprejudiced  criticism  must 
determine  whether  these  narratives  really  contain  the  historically  credible 
account  of  the  foretelling  of  these  facts,  in  a  form  which,  at  the  time  of  the 
foretelling,  was  beyond  the  power  of  calculation  Even  in  that  case  we 
must  still  take  care  to  regard  the  accidental  (contingent)  circumstances 
announced  by  the  prophets  as  not  morally  indifferent.  It  is  this 
unequivocally  ethical  character  which  distinguishes  true  prediction  from 
the  motley  array  of  oracles  which  owes  its  rise  to  the  Mantics  of 
heathen  nations.  We  nowhere  find  the  prophets  of  Israel  foretelling 
unimportant  curiosa ;  and  even  the  apparent  accidents  which  they 
announce  display,  on  further  examination,  a  religious  theocratic  character, 
and  generally  stand  in  direct  connexion  with  the  development  of  the 
kingdom  and  counsel  of  God.  They  appear  in  history,  not  as  diviners,  or 
explainers  of  signs,  but  as  confidants  of  God,  for  whom  He  Himself  has 
raised  the  veil  of  the  future. 

(6)  The  question  as  to  the  possibility  of  such  predictions  is  most 
closely  connected  with  that  as  to  their  recognis  ability.  The  former  can,  of 
course,  only  be  answered  affirmatively,  when  there  is  belief  in  a  God,  who 
surveys  all  the  future,  and  can,  if  it  pleases  Him,  reveal  it  to  others,  and 
at  the  same  time  a  recognition  in  man  of  the  faculty  of  consciously 
receiving  as  a  Divine  word  that  which  God  reveals  to  him.  Such  an  act 
of  revelation  ought  to  be  considered  as  morally  impossible,  if  by  it  the 
freedom  of  man  were  quite  annihilated,  and  if  he  were  brought  by  it  under 
the  irresistible  influence  of  certain  fate.  Against  this  objection  we  must 
observe  that  God  foresees  even  the  morally  free  acts  of  man  as  they  are, 
and  that  an  event  has  never  happened  only  because  it  was  foreseen  and 
foretold.  Clever  men  have,  with  a  degree  of  relative  certainty,  foreseen, 
e.g.,  the  French  Revolution  at  the  end  of  the  last,  or  the  fall  of  Napoleon 
at  the  beginning  of  this  century,  and  have  prognosticated  it  to  their 
confidants ;  have,  then,  these  two  events  taken  place  in  consequence  of 
their  prognostications?  We  meet  here  the  as  yet  unsolved  probLm  of  the 
connexion  between  the  foreknowledge  of  God  and  the  free  action  of  man. 
He,  however,  who  in  order  to  preserve  the  latter  considers  any  revelation  of 
the  future  as  unworthy  of  God,  and  even  useless  and  injurious,  may  for  the 
same  reasons  deny  the  whole  doctrine  of  Providence. — Just  as  little  may 
we  say  that  it  is  morally  impossible  that  God  should  now  and  then  make 
use  of  blameable  and  even  of  bad  men  as  the  interpreters  of  His  revela- 
tion,— as,  for  example,  Balaam,  Jonah,  and  Caiaphas.  The  ideal  of  morality 
is  undoubtedly  higher  in  the  days  of  the  New  Covenant  than  in  those  of 
the  Old,  because  the  light  of  truth  had  then  risen  with  so  much  greater 
clearness.  A  seer  with  great  imperfections  of  character  may  neverthe- 
less be  a  messenger  of  special  revelations  ;  the  confi.lant  of  God  in  one 
instance  is  not  on  that  account  always  His  favourite. — As  to  the  possibility 
of  this  communication  on  its  human  side,  the  natural  faculty  of  divination 


ITS   REALITY.  137 

( Ahnung,  second-sight),  developed  so  remarkably  in  some  persons,  already 
shows  that  the  human  spirit  has  an  organ  for  the  future,  as  well  as  a  remem- 
brance of  the  past.  Why,  we  ask,  should  not  this  natural  disposition  be  so 
elevated  and  strengthened  by  Divine  operation,  that  the  glance  of  the 
spiritual  eye  is  not  any  more  limited  by  the  confining  bounds  of  time 
and  space  ? 

Every  Divine  revelation  was  certainly  recognisable  for  the  Prophet  who 
received  it;83  especially  when  that  which  was  revealed,  as  was  often  the  case, 
was  opposed  to  his  own  views.34  They  themselves  point  expressly  to  a 
moment  of  higher  inspiration,  which  they  attempted  in  vain  to  resist,  and 
which  often  transferred  them  unexpectedly  to  a  domain,  not  of  intellectual 
reflection,  but  of  an  intuition  of  the  future,  which  was  brought  about  by 
God. — For  their  contemporaries,  too,  it  was  not  impossible  to  distinguish  the 
true  prophets  of  Jehovah  from  the  false.  The  former,  as  distinguished  from 
the  others,  remained  faithful  to  the  fundamental  principles  of  Mosaism, 
manfully  combated  cherished  ideas,  sins,,  and  inclinations,  and  were  often 
in  a  position  to  prove  their  mission  by  sign  and  wonder.  Besides,  from 
the  nature  of  the  case,  the  Divinity  of  this  mission  continued  to  be  for 
their  contemporaries  a  point  of  faith  and  conviction,  until  the  issue  had 
decided  the  cause  between  them  and  their  opponents. — To  us,  lastly, 
true  prophecy,  as  distinguished  from  false,  is  recognisable,  not  merely  by 
the  theocratic  character  and  sublimity  of  its  contents  and  tone,  but  also  by 
the  testimony  of  the  Lord  and  His  Apostles,  who  point  it  out  as  such ; 
while,  finally,  in  many  cases  the  surprising  character  of  a  fulfilment, 
which  seemed  at  first  almost  inconceivable,  renders  all  doubt  as  to  its 
Divine  origin  once  for  all  impossible. 

(c)  That  such  prophecies  as  we  mean  really  exist,  and  have  been  already 
fulfilled,  or  are  still  in  course  of  fulfilment,  hardly  requires  demonstration. 
Only  when  certain  well-known  measures  are  applied  to  the  treatment  of  the 
history  of  revelation  can  it  be  denied  that  there  often  is  a  most  remark- 
able concordance  between  prophecy  and  fulfilment.     This  will  be  seen  if 
we  think  of  the  prophecies  respecting  whole  nations  or  cities  (Assyria, 
Babylon,  Nineveh,  Tyre),  and  specially  of  the  definite  announcements  as 
to  the  person  and  work  of  the  Lord.     It  can  as  little  be  denied  that  such 
expectations  were   expressed   for  years   and   centuries  before  they  were 
realised,  as  that  they  were  raised  far  above  the  natural  reach  of  human 
intellect.     The  saying  of  Tertullian  is  true.   "  Quidquid  agitur,  prsenuntia- 
batur  :  quidquid  videtur,  audiebatur."     Even  it,  under  the  influence  of  a 
really  sound  criticism,  the  list  of  these  prophecies  has  been  in  many  ways 
lessened,  still  not  a  few  remain  whose   existence  and  import  can  only  be 
denied  as  a  consequence  of  an  inexorable  preconception. 

(d]  The  evidential  force  of  prophecies,  in  the  question  as  to  the  reality  of 
Christian  revelation,  is,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  twofold.     It  relates 
partly  to  the  prophet  himself,  and   partly  to  the  person  or  matter  which 
he  has  foretold.     It  is  evident  from  positive  proofs  that  a  prophet  has 
foretold  something  which  could  most  certainly  not  be  calculated,  and  yet 
notwithstanding  has  been  fulfilled  at  the  appointed  time ;  he  himself  then 

13  Compare  Section  xxxii.  6.  M  2  Sam.  vii.  3 ;  2  Kings  iv.  27. 


fj8  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

undoubtedly  appears  before  us  in  the  character  of  a  messenger  from  God, 
and  his  word,  in  consequence,  is  evidently  a  really  Divine  word.  But  above 
all,  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  in  His  person  and  work,  constitutes  for 
belief  a  clear  proof  that  Jesus  Christ  is  really  the  King  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
who  was  promised  of  old.  This  indeed  is  uncontradictably  settled,  that 
the  expectation  of  a  Messiah  has  been  entertained  by  the  Jews,  and  even  by 
the  heathen  ;  that  this 'expectation  was  founded  on  the  words  of  prophecy; 
and  that  the  agreement  of  this  word  with  the  event  has  in  numberless  cases 
excited  even  the  astonishment  of  honest  unbelief.  Jesus  and  His  Apostles 
were  thus  never  weary  of  pointing  to85  fulfilled  prophecy  as  an  indisputable 
guarantee  for  the  divinity  of  the  Gospel.  The  assertion  made  by  Schleier- 
macher,  that  it  is  impossible  to  prove  from  the  prophecies  that  Christ  is  the 
Saviour,  is  contradicted  by  the  most  direct  statements  of  the  New  Te -la- 
ment, and  by  a  multitude  of  facts.86  In  the  first  centuries  of  Christianity 
especially  this  proof  was  of  inestimable  value,  and  it  is  thus  designedly  and 
emphatically  adduced  by  the  oldest  Apologists,  Justin  Martyr,  Origen,  and 
others.  As  to  later  times,  though  the  impression  produced  by  these  corre- 
spondences cannot  any  longer  be  as  convincing  as  when  they  were  first 
experienced,  their  importance  continues  always  the  same,  at  least  when  we 
succeed  in  giving  a  satisfactory  answer  to  the  many  objections  which  have 
been  alleged  against  this  kind  of  external  evidence.  Even  in  this  case  the 
evidential  force  of  prophecy — superior  in  this  respect  to  that  of  miracles — 
increases  as  time  progresses,  and  brings  to  light  proofs  of  the  truth  of  the 
prophetic  words. 

(e)  The  objections  which  have  been  alleged  against  this  evidence  from 
prophecy,  originate  alternately  within  and  without  the  domain  of  the  Bible. 
The  former  are  undoubtedly  the  least  important.  Only  in  consequence  of 
arbitrary  or  intentional  misunderstanding  can  we  attempt  to  make  it  appear 
from  Holy  Scripture  itself,  that  the  Lord  or  His  Apostles  attached  no  great 
importance  to  the  word  of  prophecy  and  its  fulfilment.  This  hopeless 
proposition  cannot  in  any  case  be  proved  from  such  passages  as  Matt  xi. 
ii,  i  Cor.  xiii.  2,  9,  etc.  ;  while  such  expressions  as  are  found  in  Luke  xvi. 
31,  xxiv.  25,  Actsiii.  24,  xxvi.  22,  emphatically  contradict  it. — The  biblical 
statement,  that  notwithstanding  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy  many  continued 
unbelieving  and  disobedient,  would  only  cause  us  suspicion  if  we  had 
asserted  that  this  evidence  could  compel  any  one  to  believe,  it  being  quite 
indifferent  what  his  moral  nature  might  be,  or  if  we  could  forget  that  even  this 
obduracy  was  foretold.87 — Holy  Scripture,  it  is  true,  repeatedly  points  to  the 
possibility  of  daemoniacal  working  even  in  this  mysterious  domain,38  but  it 
calls  us,  at  the  same  time,  to  a  discerning  of  spirits,  and  supplies  a  test  for 
this  judgment.89 — If  a  complaint  be  made  as  to  the  obscurity  of  many  pro- 
phecies, in  so  far  as  this  complaint  is  not  exaggerated,  it  calls  forth  the 
answer  that  this  obscurity  was  partly  natural,  partly  necessary  to  the  fulfil- 


**  See,  e.g.,  Luke  iv.  16 — 21  ;  John  xiii.  19 ;  Acts,  passim  ;  Rom.  i.  2,  etc. 

*  See,  e.ir.t  Acts  viii.  30 — 37. 

**  Acts  xxvii.  23 — 27. 

38  Matt.  xxiv.  24 ;  Acts  xvi.  16— 18  ;  2  Thess.  ii.  9. 

K  Deut.  xviil  18 — 22;  Jer.  xxviii.  15 — 17. 


ITS   REALITY.  139 

ment,  and  was  sufficiently  counterbalanced  by  many  a  ray  of  greater  bril- 
liancy.— The  difficulty  derived  from  the  fact  that  many  oracles  in  the  Old 
Testament,  when  taken  literally  and  in  their  original  connection,  appear 
intended  for  something  quite  different  from  the  persons  or  facts  of  which  they 
are  explained  in  the  New  Testament,  cannot  be  considered  unimportant,  but 
still  diminishes  when  we  more  accurately  investigate  the  meaning  of  the  words, 
"  that  it  might  be  fulfilled,"  etc. ;  and  besides,  it  is  by  no  means  applicable  to 
all  the  prophecies.40 — Lastly,  if  our  attention  be  called  to  a  number  of  pro- 
phecies in  the  Bible,  which  still  after  centuries  remain  unfulfilled,  against 
this  palpable  fact  we  must  not,  on  the  one  hand,  overlook  the  distinc- 
tion between  form  and  contents,  letter  and  spirit;  nor,  on  the  other  hand, 
forget  that  the  last  pages  of  the  history  of  the  world  are  not  yet  written. 

But  even  in  the  domain  outside  the  Bible,  material  is  found  for  objec- 
tion and  contradiction  ;  and  attention  is  called  to  the  known  pheno- 
mena of  manticism,  soothsaying,  sorcery,  etc.,  existing  even  among  heathen 
nations.  But  then  the  distinction  in  principle  between  this  domain 
and  the  Israelitish  Prophetism,  which  has  been  already  pointed  out,  is 
entirely  lost.  "  The  heathen  oracle  is  ambiguous  like  Dialectics ;  but 
Jehovah  is  no  Loxias ;  the  prophetic  words  point  definitely  and  unam- 
biguously to  one  thing.  The  consciousness  of  Pythia  was  veiled  in  the 
dense  vapours  which  issued  from  the  hole  in  the  earth ;  her  inspiration  is 
the  unconscious  inspiration  of  nature,  as  in  magnetic  vision  ;  it  is,  on  the 
contrary,  the  'hand  of  the  Lord'  which  comes  upon  the  prophets  of 
Israel ;  their  vision  is  not  that  of  somnambulism,  but  that  of  the  spirit,  the 
co-knowledge  of  the  human  spirit  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  Providence.  The 
heathen  soothsayers  divined  by  means  of  entrails  and  the  flight  of  birds ; 
the  prophets  of  Israel  looked  into  the  mirror  of  history,  and  prophesied 
according  to  the  signs  of  the  times  "  (Martensen).  The  higher  expecta- 
tion, moreover,  of  a  glorious  future,  found  even  among  the  more  distin- 
guished heathens,  may  serve  also  as  a  proof  that  in  this  domain  too  the 
supranatural  is  by  no  means  the  contra-natural. — And  as  to  Israel,  it  is 
known  that  it  explains  not  a  few  of  the  so-called  Messianic  prophecies  in  a 
completely  different  sense,  so  that  they  lose  all  their  evidential  force  as  to 
the  divinity  of  the  Gospel.  But  it  is  also  certain  that  that  conception 
sprang  in  no  small  degree  from  reaction  against  Christian  belief,  and  that 
very  often  the  most  ancient  and  best  Jewish  exegetes  favour  the  Christian 
interpretation.41 — The  assertion  that  all  the  passages  which  exhibit  an  admit- 
tedly prophetic  character  have  been  first  conceived  and  composed  in  later 
times  in  the  light  of  the  event,  is  an  absolute  falsehood.  From  whence  did  the 
expectation  by  the  Jews  of  a  Messiah,  which  shortly  before  Jesus'  coming 
was  spread  over  the  whole  East,  spiing,  if  there  were  not  any  Messianic 
prophecies  at  all  ?  The  bold  affirmation  of  Strauss,  that  we  are  not  abso- 
lutely sure  that  in  any  prophecy  we  have  not  given  us  a  vatidnmm  ex 
eventu,  deserves  only  the  reply,  "  Stat  pro  ratione  voluntas."  The  con- 
cordance of  prophecy  and  fulfilment  is  only  impossible,  then,  when  belief  in 
an  omniscient,  omnipotent,  and  free-working  Lord  of  the  future  is  thought  a 

40  Comp.  J.  J.  VAN  OOSTERZEE,  Christologie^  i.  p.  52. 

41  See  HENGSTENBERG'S  C histology. 


I4O  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 


chimera ;  "  siquidem  ista  sic  reciprocantur,  ut  si  divinatio  sit,  et  Dei  tint, 
ft  si  Dei  sint,  sit  et  divinatio  "  (Cicero  de  Divin.  i.  5). — Lastly,  if  attention 
be  called  to  the  fearful  abuse  made  also  of  this  belief  in  the  service  of 
fanaticism  and  superstition,  we  must  consider  how  little  that  abuse  can 
testify  against  the  right  use  of  it,  and  also  what  a  rich  treasure  of  light  and 
comfort  this  last,  on  the  other  hand,  has  for  centuries  revealed. 

(/)  After  all  we  have  said,  we  cannot  be  surprised  to  see  this  evidence 
held  in  honour  by  such  men  as  Grotius,  Leibnitz,  and  Pascal,  as  well  as  by 
many  others.  The  reasoning,  however,  founded  upon  fulfilled  prophecy, 
must,  with  respect  to  the  Jew,  be  conducted  in  a  somewhat  different 
manner  than  that  with  respect  to  the  philosophic  sceptic;  whilst  the  dinerent 
degree,  development,  knowledge  of  the  language,  etc.,  of  the  opponents  of 
the  prophetic  word  may  not  be  passed  over  in  the  consideration.  The 
proofs  derived  from  separate  oracles  must  naturally  be  not  only  counted, 
but  also  weighed ;  and  the  sacred  utterances  must  be  carefully  explained 
according  to  the  well -tested  rule  of  the  Hermeneutics  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment It  is,  besides,  important  not  to  separate  this  argument  as  a  whole 
from,  but  to  connect  it  most  closely  with,  the  idea  of  Miracle  ;  just  as  this 
last,  again,  with  the  entire  historic  proof;  and  to  have  regard  not  only  to 
a  number  of  separate  passages,  but  specially  to  the  great  "Whole"  of 
the  Old  Testament  dispensation  in  its  prophetic  character.  It  is  most 
important  to  see  in  the  prophetic  utterances,  not  merely  credentials  for, 
but  elements  of,  the  revelation  itself,  serving  to  unfold  this  last  to  us 
in  its  gradual  development.  God  reveals  Himself  ever  again,  now  in 
the  announcement,  then  in  the  fulfilment,  of  the  facts  of  salvation,  which  in 
their  turn  bear  in  themselves  the  germ  of  new  development.  Thus  every 
prophet  treads  in  the  footsteps  of  venerable  forerunners,  and  all  together 
point  to  One,  who  with  a  most  conscious  certainty  appeals  to  them  as  so 
many  witnesses  of  His  Divine  mission.48 

Compare,  in  addition  to  the  books  mentioned  in  J.  J.  VAN  OosTERZEE,  Biblical  Theology 
of  the  New  Testament,  Eng.  trans.,  p.  45;  A.  NICOLAS,  Etud.  Philosoph.  (1861),  iv.,  pp. 
158—284;  K.  KOHLER,  Der  Profet.  der  Hebr.  und  die  Mantik  der  Griechen  (1860); 
G.  BAUR,  Geschichte  der  Alt.  Testamentlichen  Weissagung  (1861) ;  but  especially  the  im- 
portant work  of  KiJPER,  Das  Prophetenth.  des  A.  B.  iibersichtlich  dargestellt  (1870). 
The  inconsistencies  into  which  men  inevitably  run,  when  they  systematically  reject  this 
evidence,  are  convincingly  brought  out  by  A.  MONOD,  in  his  excellent  sermon,  La 
Credulit'e  de  Flncredule.  Sermons,  T.  ii.  (1857),  pp.  311 — 365. 

8.  We  have  spoken  of  Miracles  and  Predictions  in  general ;  we  must  now 
pay  separate  heed  to  two  kinds,  the  predictions  spoken  by  Jesus,  and  the 
miracles  wrought  in,  for,  and  with  Him.  As  to  the  first,  according  to  the 
Evangelic  narrative,  our  Lord  spoke  a  number  of  remarkable  prophecies 
respecting  His  own  approaching  fate ;  *  the  behaviour  and  fate  of  His  dis- 
ciples, and  specially  Peter  and  Judas;44  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish 
state,45  as  well  as  those  relating  to  the  straggle  and  triumph  of  His  Gospel;46 

42  John  v.  39—47. 

8  Matt.  xvi.  21  ;  xvii.  12,  22,  and  parallels. 

14  Matt.  xxvi.  21,  sqq.,  31  ,34  ;  John  xxi.  18,  19. 

u  Matt.  xxiv.  4,  sqq. 

*  Matt.  xiii.  31—33;  xxvi.  13  ;  compare  Luke  xii.  49 — 51. 


ITS   REALITY. 

and  the  final  end  of  the  history  of  the  world.47  What  we  have  declared 
with  respect  to  the  Biblical  prophecies  in  general  is  true  also  concerning 
those  prophecies.  It  must  first  of  all  be  shown  by  an  exegetical  and  critical 
process  that  we  have  here  real  utterances,  derived  from  Jesus  Himself,  of 
such  a  character  that  they  cannot  possibly  be  explained  as  naturally  lore- 
seen  from  the  usual  course  of  things.  No  authority  whatever  must  here 
be  conceded  to  such  an  aprioristic  criticism  as  starts  from  the  tacit  assump- 
tion of  the  impossibility  of  such  phenomena.  The  facts  must  be  considered 
in  themselves,  in  their  historic  connexion,  and  by  the  light  of  that  which  in 
other  ways  is  already  known  concerning  the  Saviour,  if  by  this  method 
it  is  evident  that  they  justify  us  in  attributing  to  Him,  not  merely  a 
rare  knowledge  of  mankind ;  but  also  a  properly  so  called  foreknowledge, 
clearly  proved  by  the  event,  we  have  then  the  fullest  right  to  perceive  in 
such  a  series  of  facts  the  sign  and  guarantee,  not  only  of  a  Divine  mission, 
but  also,  in  this  case,  of  a  Divine  glory.  Jesus  Himself  pointed  out  to 
His  disciples  these  fulfilled  prophecies,  as  pledges  of  His  dignity  as  the 
Messiah,  and  of  His  heavenly  origin.48  They  were  the  more  suited  for  them, 
since  the  knowledge  also  of  the  hidden  was  considered  as  one  of  the  marks 
by  which  men  should  recognise  Messsiah  as  the  highest  Ambassador  of 
God.49  But  they  continue  even  for  later  ages,  by  legitimate  inference,  to 
serve  as  evidences  of  the  wholly  unique  self-consciousness  which  He  bore 
within  Himself,  and  of  the  wholly  unique  position  which  He  occupies  in  the 
kingdom  of  God. 

We  come  to  a  similar  conception  when  we  glance  at  the  Miracles  which 
were  wrought  in,  for,  and  with  Jesus,  during  His  stay  on  earth.  This 
time  we  do  not  look  at  His  acts,  but  to  an  important  part  oi  the  events 
of  His  life,  as,  e.g.,  the  remarkable  circumstances  of  His  birth  ;  the  angelic 
appearances,  and  the  heavenly  voices  at  marked  epochs  in  His  history ;  the 
signs  at  His  death  and  resurrection  ,  the  bodily  rising  again  on  the  third  day; 
the  ascent  into  heaven,  with  its  wondrous  consequences ;  and  specially  the 
outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  the  conversion  of  St.  Paul,  etc.  Here  is  natu- 
rally not  the  place  to  maintain  the  credibility  of  all  these  facts  in  themselves — 
withjregard  to  the  most  remarkable,  we  shall  find  an  opportunity  hereafter — 
but  only  to  point  out  their  Apologetic  importance,  if  their  credibility  be 
presupposed.  The  mechanical  method  in  which  this  argument  has  been 
often  applied  has  brought  it  into  discredit  with  many  The  deduction  put 
in  this  manner — Christianity  is  Divine,  because  angels  were  seen  thus  and 
there,  and  voices  heard  from  heaven — will  certainly  not  be  convincing  for 
many.  The  importance  of  all  these  facts  is  by  no  means  the  same.  This, 
however,  does  not  prevent  them,  when  properly  elucidated,  and  placed  in 
their  historic  connexion,  from  contributing  not  a  little  to  prove  the  sub- 
limity, and  even  the  Divinity,  of  the  Revelation  in  Christ.  Not  only  do  the 
rays  which  stream  from  it,  but  also  the  purple  clouds  which  float  around 
it,  alike  testify  to  the  shining  of  the  sun.  We  must  only  take  care  to 
regard  these  special  facts,  not  merely  as  external  and  accessory  proofs, 
but  also  as  essential  elements  of  the  Revelation.  All  those  works  of  wonder 
are  excellently  fitted  to  strengthen  the  conviction  of  the  high  dignity  of  the 

47  Matt,  xxiv.,  xxv.  «*  John  xiii.  19 ;  xiv.  29.  *  John  iv.  2$  ;  xvi.  30. 


I42  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

person  of  the  Lord,  which  has  been  already  aroused,  and  will  in  this  manner 
be  serviceable,  provided  they  be  only  regarded  not  in  themselves,  but  in 
connexion  with  the  glorious  whole,  and  in  the  light  ot  Jesus' own  utterances. 
Certainly,  all  these  miraculous  phenomena  fall  back  into  the  shade,  by  the 
side  of  the  much  greater  spiritual  wonders  which  were  wrought  by  Christ  and 
the  Gospel ;  but  yet  it  would  be  a  onesided  spiritualism  to  call  the  former,  for 
this  reason,  wholly  unimportant.  They  have  had  a  beneficial  effect  on  some  ;M 
to  them  the  Lord  Himself  attached  a  relative  value  ;51  and  when  once 
sufficiently  established,  they  contain  even  for  later  times  a  testimony  which 
must  not  be  lightly  valued.62  This  is  specially  true  of  the  Resurrection  of 
the  Lord,  to  which,  as  will  hereafter  be  shown,  a  very  high  apologetic 
value  was  rightly  attributed  by  His  first  witnesses.  It  is  evident  that  the 
whole  estimate  of  His  person  and  work  becomes  completely  different, 
according  as  we  believe,  or  do  not  believe,  that  He  rose  the  third  day  from 
the  dead.  It  may  therefore  be  called  almost  inconceivable  that  Schleier- 
macher  would  not  even  admit  the  Resurrection  and  Ascension  as  elements 
of  the  doctrine  concerning  the  person  of  the  Lord;  and  almost  incre- 
dible that  it  should  be  considered  historically  demonstrable,  but  less 
dogmatically  significant.  "  I  cannot  understand  how  any  one  can  assert,  I 
believe  in  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus,  and  then  explain  this  belief  as  a 
matter  of  secondary  consideration "  (Riggenbach).  Meanwhile,  it  is 
plain  that  this  event  must  not  be  isolated  from  the  historical  connexion 
in  which  it  is,  we  had  almost  said  to  a  certain  degree  comprehensible, 
but  now,  for  the  great  question  which  is  occupying  our  attention,  the 
more  significant. 

9.  He,  who  for  all  the  above-named  grounds  confesses  the  character  of 
revelation  in  the  appearing  of  Christ,  has  also  a  firm  footing  for  looking 
at  the  Apostolic  age  in  its  proper  light,  and  for  estimating  according  to 
its  claims  the  testimony  which  it  too  offers  in  favour  of  the  reality  of  the 
revelation.  It  is  impossible  to  understand  the  age  of  the  Apostles, 
when  separating  it  from  the  Messianic  period.  By  the  light  of  the  latter 
only  can  it  be  explained :  but  then  not  a  little  is  proved  by  the  fact  that 
the  Apostles  are  those  they  are,  and  that  they  do  what  they  do.  Even 
the  history  of  the  founding  and  first  extension  of  the  Christian  Church  is 
not  only  a  proof  for,  but  an  element  of,  the  Divine  revelation  in  the 
glorified  Christ.  Looking  at  it  in  this  light,  it  seems  to  us  neither 
incredible  nor  unimportant  that  miracles  were  wrought  by,  and  in  relation 
to,  the  Apostles,  which,  connected  with  the  prophecies  here  heard  and 
fulfilled,  legitimate  their  claim  to  be  men  of  God,53  and  invest  their  preaching 
of  the  Gospel  with  a  higher  character  than  that  of  a  merely  human  word.54 
And  still  more  than  separate  miracles  and  prophecies,  which  can  always  be 
disputed,  does  the  entire  individuality  of  the  Apostles,  compared  with  their 
character  at  an  earlier  period,  as  we  learn  to  know  it  here,  throw  an 
important  weight  into  the  scale.  What  do  personalities  as  those  of 
St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  testify  in  favour  of,  and  to  the  honour  of  Jesus  ? 

50  Matt,  xxvii.  54.  M  Acts  iii.  and  iv. ;  xi.  28;  xxvii.  21 — 25. 

41  John  xii.  30.  w  Acts  iv.  29,  30. 

M  Heb.  ii.  3,  4. 


ITS  REALITY.  143 

St.  Paul's  life,  especially,  is  absolutely  inconceivable,  if  the  resurrection 
and  ascension  of  the  Lord  must  be  called  a  cunningly  devised  fable.55 
To  the  question,  What  does  a  personality,  activity,  and  experience,  such 
as  that  of  St.  Paul,  presuppose  with  respect  to  Jesus  of  Nazareth?  the 
modern  negation  has  thus  far  not  returned  any  satisfactory  answer.  What 
is  more,  the  whole  spirit  of  the  Apostolic  age  and  its  literature,  compared 
with  the  immediately  preceding  and  following  ages,  exhibits  a  thoroughly 
peculiar  character,  which  cannot  certainly  be  better  explained  than  by  the 
mighty  influence  of  a  new  and  special  revelation.  When  we  put  all  these 
things  together,  the  alternative  forces  itself  on  us  with  increased  strength, 
"  there  remains  nothing  else  but  either  to  explain  Christianity  as  the  result 
of  a  monstrous  deceit,  or  to  admit  that  God  has  really  spoken  and  acted, 
i.e.,  has,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  revealed  Himself  in  Christ." 
(Auberlen.) 

10.  If,  after  all  that  has  been  said,  the  reality  of  the  Revelation  in  Christ 
cannot  well  be  denied,  a  light  too  rises  before  us  upon  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament.  We  would  not  willingly  assert  that  it  would  be  impossible 
to  prove  to  a  certain  extent  the  Divine  authority  of  Moses  and  the 
Prophets,  even  regarded  in  themselves,  and  without  the  light  of  the  Gospel. 
But  in  the  present  condition  of  the  criticism  of  the  writings  of  the  Old 
Testament,  that  method  certainly  deserves  the  preference,  which  speaks 
only  of  the  revelational  character  of  Mosaism  and  Prophetism,  after  the 
historical  foundation  for  belief  in  Christ  has  been  laid  and  established.  It 
cannot  be  denied  that  while  the  first  ages  believed  in  Christ  partly  for  the 
sake  of  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  the  Church  in  our  days  continues  to 
acknowledge  the  authority  of  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  principally  for  the 
sake  of  Christ,  and  on  the  testimony  of  His  word.  That  He  and  His 
Apostles  have  acknowledged  the  words  of  these  men  as  Divine  testimony, 
and  have  continued  to  build  on  it,  cannot  seriously  be  denied.86  As  little, 
however,  can  it  be  denied,  that  these  men  of  God,  according  to  the  sacred 
narratives,  have  proved  their  higher  mission  by  real  prophetic  words  and 
wondrous  works.  The  whole  system  of  the  old  Covenant  appears  in  the 
character  of  a  preliminary  revelation.  Here,  too,  the  miracles  have  a 
higher  importance  as  they  stand  in  a  more  direct  connexion  with  the  chief 
aim  and  centre  of  this  revelation.  All  have  not,  considered  in  themselves, 
the  same  evidence ;  all  indeed  have  not  the  same  historical  and  religious 
import.  Careful  examination  will  here  have  to  remove  many  a  stumbling- 
stone  from  before  the  feet  of  the  Apologist.  But  this  may  be  asserted 
against  many  an  unanswered  question,  in  so  far  as  separate  facts  are  con- 
cerned, stands  here  the  convincing  power  of  the  whole,  which  can  neither 
be  reasoned  away,  nor  explained  in  a  natural  manner.  As  Christ  Himself  is 
the  greatest  miracle  of  the  New  Testament,  so  is  Israel  itself,  from  whence 
salvation  was  to  come,57  the  greatest  miracle  of  the  Old.  Three  facts  in 


M  Comp.  W.  BEYSCHLAG,  on  the  Conversion  of  St.  Paul,  in  St.  u.  K.  (1864),  ii.;  G. 
WARNECK,  Pauli  Bekehiitng,  eine  Apologie  des  Christenthums,  in  the  Beiveis  des  Glaubens 
(1872),  p.  394,  sqq. 

56  John  v.  39  ;  Acts  xvii.  2,  3. 

*7  John  iv.  22. 


144  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

particular  remain  absolutely  inconceivable  to  us,  if  belief  in  special  revela- 
tion is  here  utterly  forbidden :  we  mean,  Monotheism  in  Israel,  the  Theo- 
cracy over  Israel,  and  the  continued  existence  and  fate  of  the  people  of 
Israel,  considered  in  the  light  of  ancient  prophecy,  and  their  later  rejection 
of  Christ.58  The  Jewish  nation,  regarded  as  a  whole,  is  an  aye-enduring 
proof  for  the  truth  of  Christianity;  an  Ahasuerus  who  can  hope  for  no 
departure  like  Simeon's,  before  he  has  found  the  Christ — inimica  testis  fidei 
nostrce  (Augustine).  If  this  is  established  in  principle,  then  even  in  this 
domain  the  miraculous  contains  no  insuperable  difficulty,  though  separate 
narratives  of  miracles  may  demand  further  investigation.  Israelis  only  to 
be  explained  as  a  "  people  of  revelation,"  and  the  past,  the  present,  and 
the  future  of  that  people  remains  a  mystery,  if  no  special  revelation  has 
been  given  in  Christ  and  Christianity. 

Compare  on  this  subject  a  treatise  of  L.  SURINGAR  in  De  Werken  v.  h.  Haagsch.  Gen. 
(1809);  I.  DA  COSTA,  Voorll.  over  de  Vier  Evang.  (1840),  i.  bl.  20,  sqq. ;  C.  H.  KALKAR, 
werde  Theocratic  onder  Israel,  H.  G.  (1842);  C.  A.  AUBERLEN,  Divitie  Revelation,  etc.; 
H.  SCHULTZ,  Alt.-Testamentl.  TIieoL,  ii.  fh.  (1869) ;  and  E.  W.  HENGSTENBERG, 
Geschichte  des  Reiches  Gottes  unter  dem  Alt.  Bunde  (3  parts,  1869-71) ;  specially  the  intro- 
duction. 

ii.  As  the  circle  thus  returned  to  its  point  of  departure,  it  is  evident 
that  the  full  force  of  our  historical  plea  is  only  then  seen  when  we  take  care 
not  only  to  consider  facts  separately  in  themselves,  but  still  more  to  combine 
them.  There  certainly  remain  not  a  few  difficulties,  but  they  become  almost 
unimportant,  as  compared  with  the  still  greater  difficulties  in  which  men 
are  inevitably  involved,  so  long  as,  in  opposition  to  all  these  voices,  they 
continue  to  deny  the  supranatural  character  of  the  Christian  revelation.  No 
science  but  has  its  mysteries ;  that  of  religion,  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  most  so.  Where,  however,  such  valid  reasons  exist,  the  Apologist 
adheres  to  his  full  right,  when,  at  the  entrance  of  the  Christian  temple,  he 
repeats,  not  merely  with  a  loud  voice,  but  also  with  head  on  high, 
"Introite,  et  hie  Dei  sunt."  "Hoc  unum  gestit  (religio),  ne  ignorata 
damnetur."  (Tertullian.) 

II.  What  has  been  obtained  as  the  result  of  External  proof,  is  contradicted 
in  not  one  respect  by  the  Internal,  but,  on  the  contrary,  in  many  respects 
strongly  supported.  Internal — the  name  already  makes  us  acquainted  in 
general  with  the  nature  of  the  proof.  It  is  not  derived  from  any  external 
wonder  or  sign,  but  from  the  contents  of  revelation  itself.  The  Lord 
pointed  to  this  in  John  vii.  i7,69and  promised  that  he  who  was  really 
inclined  to  do  God's  will, — in  other  words,  the  man  who  honestly  loved  the 
truth,  and  was  striving  after  holiness, — should  convince  himself  experiment- 
ally of  the  Divinity  of  His  doctrine.  But  that  which  is  thus  decidedly  true  of 
His  doctrine  can,  in  a  no  less  degree,  be  repeated  of  the  whole  revelation. 
The  external  proof  of  its  Divine  origin  can  be  brought  forward  in  more  than 
one  way.  We,  for  our  part,  prefer  to  draw  the  attention  to  the  impression 
and  the  influence  which  the  Gospel  produces  in  the  truly  receptive  spirit. 


68  Deut.  xxviii.  ;  Rom.  ix. — xi. 

*  Compare  John  viii.  47  ;  xviii.  37  ;  I  John  iv.  6. 


ITS   REALITY.  143 

i.  Great  already  is  the  Impression  which  (a)  the  plan  of  Jesus  produces, 
as  revealed  by  Him  by  word  and  deed.  Never  has  a  sublimer  thought, 
than  the  central  thought  of  His  life,  sprung  up  in  any  human  heart.  A 
kingdom  of  God,  entirely  universal,  spiritual,  eternal ;  founded  not  by 
material,  but  by  moral  forces  ;  a  spiritual  creation,  in  a  word,  which 
embraces  heaven  and  earth.  The  very  thought  seems  folly ;  as  such  it 
never  sprang  up — this  is  historically  proved — in  the  heart  of  philoso- 
phers or  poets,  of  lawgivers  or  kings.  And  yet,  it  was  cheri.-hed  by  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  uttered  by  Him,  and  realized  to  a  degree  never  before 
known.60  Even  a  Frederick  the  Great  and  a  Napoleon  the  First  have 
observed  here  the  trace  of  something  supranatural.  Does  this  betoken 
little  or  nothing? 

(b]  No  less  impression  is  aroused  in  the  truth-loving  soul  by  the  self- 
wituess  of  Christ.     To  feel  the  force  of  this  proof,  it  must  specially  be  con- 
sidered that  He  was  lowly  in  heart,  and  sought  not  His  own  honour.61    And 
yet  this  mouth  declares  of  His  person,  that  which  no  one  has  ever  testified 
of  himself.     We  have  these  testimonies  about  His  suprahuman  dignity,  not 
only  in  St.  John,  but  also  in  the  first  three  Gospels,  and  they  are  abundant 
and  unequivocal.      Only  wilfulness  can  call  them  all  unauthentic;   only 
an  unnatural  wresting  explain  the  words  by  a  natural  method.     Historical 
and  psychological  reasons  forbid  us  to  think  here  either  of  self-deception  or 
of  fanaticism.     Therefore,  the  utterance  of  this  self-consciousness  must  be 
true;  :  nd  even  if  truth  were  here  incomprehensible,  the  contrary  wculd  be 
utterly  inconceivable. 

(c]  This,  indeed,  is  seen  by  a  glance  at  the  impression  made   by  the 
whole  personality  of  the  Lord.     "  The  impossibility  of  inventing  such  a 
personality  as  that  of  Christ  overcomes  every  doubt "  (Lavater).     Fulness 
and  harmony,  force  and  calm,  holiness  and  love,  majesty  and  humility, 
are  here  united,  as  nowhere  else,  without  ever  coming  in  conflict  with  one 
another.     This  fact,  hereafter  (§   93)  expressly  to  be  established  against 
all  contradiction,  guarantees,  on  one  side,  the  trustworthiness  of  His  self- 
testimony,  on  the  other,  the  genuineness  of  His  history.     Sooner  might  a 
Madonna  of  Raphael  or  Murillo  be  drawn  by  a  tyro,  than  this  image  of 
Christ  have  been  invented  by  these  Galileans.     He  stands  before  us  the 
highest,  the  ideal  Man,  and  neither  reason  nor  experience  allow  us  to  see 
in  Him  the  merely  natural  product  of  sinful  humanity. 

(d]  Least  of  all  do  we  feel  the  courage  to  say  this,  as  we  consider  the 
impression   which   is   ever   again  produced  by  the  Moral  and  Religious 
Contents  of  the  Revelation.     In  this  respect  the  religion  of  Moses  already 
makes  an  impression  which  is  exceedingly  favourable.     Think,  e.g.,  among 
others,   of  the  strong  ethical  nature  ot  his  conception  of  God,  as   con- 
trasted with  the  sensual  representations  of  Polytheism  ;  of  the  real  human, 
philanthropic,  and  religious  character    of  his   legislation,  compared  with 
that  of  the  other  nations  of  antiquity  ;  think  of  the  moral  character  of 
the  most  celebrated  prophets,   who  are    known    to  us,  too  lofty  for  any 

60  Comp.  F.  N.  REINHARD,  Plan  van  den  Stickler  des  Christendoms  (1806) ;  J.  J.  VAN 
OOSTERZEE,  Leven  van  Jezus,  i.  2,  §  12  ;  PH.  SCHAFF,  Jaus  Christ,  the  Miracle  of  History. 

61  Matt.  xi.  29  ;  John  v.  43. 

L 


146  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

fiction,  as  well  as  for  any  illusion ;  of  the  irreconcilable  struggle  of  the 
religion  of  the  Israelites  with  the  almost  indestructible  character  of  the 
people,  which  forbids  us  to  see  in  that  religion  the  natural  result  of  this 
character ;  lastly,  of  the  gradual  development  of  the  expectation  of  the 
Messiah,  to  a  height  and  with  a  definiteness  which  remains  inexplicable,  if 
we  do  not  here  recognise  any  fruit  of  special  revelation. — But  specially 
does  the  subject-matter  of  the  New  Testament  bear  the  stamp  of  Divinity.  Its 
principal  contents,  the  anticipating  love  of  God,  shown  out  of  grace  to  a 
sinful  world,  has  never  before  found  its  way  into  a  human  heart.  Still  less 
has  the  Christian  conception  of  God  in  its  purity  and  sublimity  been 
equalled  or  excelled  by  any  single  philosopher  of  antiquity.  Here,  too,  has 
Christian  morality,  whether  we  look  at  the  sublimity  of  its  precepts,  the 
purity  of  its  principles,  the  force  of  its  arguments  and  means,  an  excellence 
which  becomes  more  evident  as  it  is  compared  with  that  of  any  philoso- 
pher. This,  above  all,  must  not  be  overlooked,  that  while  every  human  reli- 
gious system  is  more  or  less  optimistic,  the  Christian  religion  exhibits  a 
remarkable  pessimistic  character.  It  does  not  flatter  man,  but  it  breaks  his 
pride  by  branding  him  as  a  sinner ;  it  makes  humility,  according  to  the 
saying  of  St  Augustine,  the  first,  the  second,  and  the  third  virtue  ;  and 
leads  us  even  by  these  gloomy  depths  to  the  highest  moral  perfection 
which  is  conceivable.62  Is  it  probable  that  a  system  of  faith  and  morals, 
so  well  suited  to  man,  and  yet  so  little  according  to  man's  nature,  should 
have  sprung  out  of  and  from  man  ? 

2.  Thus  we  come  naturally  to  the  Influence  which  the  Gospel  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  exercises  on  the  soul  which  is  capable  of  receiving  it. 
We  have  already  spoken  (§  xxxii.  i,  4)  of  the  working  of  Christianity  in  a 
wider  circle,  but  as  we  cast  our  glance  on  the  little  world  of  the  individual 
heart,  we  are  led  to  the  very  same  conclusion.  Experience  proves  that 
Christianity  possesses  a  power  of  enlightening,  comforting,  and  sanctifying 
man,  which  cannot  be  over-estimated.63  Never  has  any  one  come  forth 
nrith  higher  promises  than  Christ,64  and  yet  they  have  been  thoroughly 
fulfilled.  As  the  complete  recovery  of  the  sick  man  is  the  best 
evidence  of  the  virtue  of  the  medicine,  so  is  the  fruit  of  the  Gospel  the 
guarantee  of  the  value  and  origin  of  the  plant.  He  that  hath  the  Son  hath 
really  life,  and  becomes,  in  His  communion,  what  he  has  never  before 
been.  What  a  number  of  eminent  and  blessed  persons,  "of  whom  the 
world  was  not  worthy,"  have  been  formed  by  the  word  and  the  Spirit 
of  Christ !  He  who  accepts  Him,  and  follows  Him,  may  make  the  words 
expressed  in  John  iv.  42,  vi.  68,  and  ix.  25,  his  own.  But  here  we  come 
to  a  point  where  the  proof  of  experience  blends  with  the  testimony  ' 
of  the  Holy  Spirit :  and  to  this  last  we  shall  afterwards  recur. 

It  is  true  that  even  in  our  days  objections,  not  a  few  in  number,  and 

62  Compare,  as  to  this  argument,  the  three  essays  of  J.  CLARISSE,  MOELLER,  and  an 
anonymous  writer,  in  the  works  of  the  Hajme  Society,  1803 ;  and  also,  as  to  the  next  point, 
the  beautiful  ninth  and  tenth  letters  of  C.  H.  STIRM,  Apologiedes  Christenth.  (1836),  p. 
310,  sqq. 

Comp.  F.  V.  REINHARD.  De  Praestant;&  Rel    Chr.  in  Consolandis  Miseris ;  S.  K. 
THODEN  VAN  VEI  ZEN,  De  Hominis  cum  Deo  Similitudine,  part  ii.     Gron.,  1835-37. 
64  John  vi.  35  ;  viii.  12  ;  xiv.  12. 


ITS   REALITY.  147 

among  them  some  of  weight,  have  been  made  against  this  part  of  the 
internal  proof.  It  is  ever  again  asserted  by  a  party  hostile  to  Christianity, 
that  it  takes  away  from  nature  its  Divine  character;  that  it  derogates  from 
the  rights  of  actual  life ;  preacb.es  slothfulness  ;  injures  common  society 
to  benefit  a  heavenly  kingdom  ;  excites  a  mistaken  desire  for  reward  by 
directing  our  eyes  too  much  towards  the  other  world,  etc.  But  these 
objections,  already  often  confuted,  flow  in  no  small  degree  from  dreadful 
ignorance  and  wretched  misunderstanding,  and  can  even,  at  least  in  the 
oft-chosen  form,  be  hardly  regarded  as  honourably  and  seriously  raised.05 
We  are  as  yet  waiting  always  in  vain,  till  men  give  us,  in  place  of  the 
derided  Gospel,  a  better  one  ;  and  on  the  grounds  of  history  and  experience 
we  assert  that  the  Christian  religion — if  that  name  be  used  in  the  supra- 
natural  sense  of  the  word — is  the  very  best  teacher  of  true  humanity,66 
— and  it  is  just  this  its  force  which,  in  our  estimation,  is  at  the  same  time 
the  highest  guarantee  of  its  Divinity. 

3.  We  cannot  be  surprised  that  the  internal  proof  has  at  all  times  been 
urged  with  zeal  and  predilection.  To  the  names  already  mentioned,  we 
may  add  those  of  Tertullian,  Athenagoras,  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  and 
Augustine.  Luther,  too,  pointed  to  the  "  high  spiritual  miracles,"  before 
which  the  external  have  sunk  into  the  shade,  and  the  predilection  of  Pascal 
and  the  school  of  Vinet  for  "  the  internal  and  moral  proof"  is  universally 
known.  It  deserves  that  estimation  on  account  of  its  evidence,  its 
popularity,  and  its  eminently  practical  tendency.  As  we  listen  to  historic 
testimony,  a  critical  investigation  is  required,  that  again  and  again  elicits 
the  well  known  complaint  "  que  d'hommes  entre  Dieu  et  moi."  Here,  on 
the  contrary,  the  same  end  is  reached  by  a  shorter  and  more  simple  way, 
and  belief  based  on  these  grounds,  cannot  possibly  remain  a  cool  assent, 
but  becomes  at  once  life  and  force.  Not  incorrectly — as  far  at  least  as 
concerns  the  fact,  but  not  the  etymology  of  the  word — has  this  proof  been 
called  "  a  demonstration  of  the  spirit  and  of  power."67  Where  the  testimony 
of  the  Gospel  thus  finds  an  echo  in  the  inmost  soul,  there  the  certainty  of 
belief  becomes  ours;  I  could  more  easily  doubt  that  I  was  alive,  than  that 
those  things  which  I  heard  were  true."68  (Augustine.) 

III.  We  could  be  more  brief  concerning  the  Internal  than  the  External 
proof,  because  it  has  relatively  been  less  disputed.  Concerning  the  com- 
bination of  the  two,  however,  a  few  questions  must  not  be  left  unanswered. 

i.  The  reason  why  this  combination  always,  but  especially  in  our  days, 
is  necessary,  can  easily  be  guessed.  First,  in  this  union  lies  the  true  force 
of  the  maintenance  of  the  Christian  belief  in  Revelation.  To  whatever 
height  the  internal  proof  may  be  brought,  and  however  it  might  succeed  in 
recommending  Christianity  as  excellent  and  most  worthy  of  God,  this  ccn- 
viction  could  never  have  justified  itself  according  to  its  claims,  if  it  had  not 

K  Comp.  L.  J.  VAN  RHIJN,  De  nieuwe  Dageraad  en  de  oude  Heilzon  (1860). 

86  Comp.  J.  J.  VAN  OOSTERZEE,  Oratio.  de  Rd.  Christ.  eptiinA  vcra  humanitatis 
Magistrd.  Dutch  Transl.  in  Voor  Kerk  en  Theol.  (1872)  ii.,  p.  118,  sqq.;  Dr.  J.  CRAMER, 
Christendom  en  Humctniteit  (187  P. 

67  I  Cor.  ii.  4. 

68  Facilius  dubitarem  me  vivere,  quatn  vera  esse,  quae  audivi. 

L   2 


148  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

appealed  at  all  to  historic  facts.  With  the  tiuth  of  these  last  stands  or 
falls  the  recognition  of  the  reality  of  the  Revelation.  Yet,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  external  proofs,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  leave  so  many 
questions  unanswered,  that  their  completion  and  elucidation  by  the  internal 
is  very  desirable,  and  even  necessary.  It  is  precisely  by  this  combination 
that  the  intellect  and  the  heart  are  at  the  same  time  satisfied  ;  the  light  is 
accompanied  by  heat,  and  with  objective  proof  will  not  be  wanting  the 
subjective  certainty. 

This  is  even  more  needed  in  these  days,  when  so  often,  to  the  injury  of 
the  cause,  a  sharp  distinction  is  made  between  historical  and  religious  truth ; 
and  the  latter,  as  the  higher,  is  even  opposed  to  the  former.  This  separa- 
tion between  facts  and  ideas,  specially  carried  on  in  this  case  since  Lessing's 
time,  and  under  his  influence,  is  the  irp&rov  ^eCSox  of  the  modern  Theology, 
by  which  it  misunderstands  miserably  the  peculiar  character  of  the  Chris- 
tian Revelation.  "  Accidental  historic  truths  can  never  be  the  proof  of 
necessary  rational  truths."  In  itself  this  perhaps  is  most  true,  but  here 
it  has  absolutely  no  connexion ;  because  the  Gospel  preaches  something 
more  "  than  necessary  rational  truths,"  and  something  different  from 
"accidental  historic  truths."  Are  not  fact  and  dogma  united  most  indis- 
solubly  in  its  chief  subject-matter  ? CD  Whence  does  it  appear  that  in  the 
Holy  Scripture  as  the  word  of  God  there  is  merely  pointed  out  "religious 
truth,"  apart  from  "historic  facts  "  ?  (Scholten.)  Perhaps  from  Exodus  xx. 
2,  3,  or  Acts  iv.  31 — 33,  or  Acts  x.  36 — 43?  We  thought  that  both  there 
and  elsewhere  we  read  the  very  opposite.  It  is  precisely  the  peculiarity  of 
Christianity  that  i's  ideas  and  facts  can  be  as  little  separated  as  body  and 
soul  in  man.  Christianity  is  religion,  we  grant,  but  an  historically  revealed 
religion,  which  must  establish  itself  as  such  by  historic  methods.  It  points 
to  the  deeds  of  God.  in  which  thoughts  of  salvation  are  seen ;  without  such 
deed  of  salvation  on  His  part  being  irrevocably  concealed  from  the  creature. 
But  if  both  these  are  inseparably  one,  then  the  internal  proof  cannot 
possibly  do  without  the  support  of  the  external,  or  the  external  give  up  that 
of  the  internal. 

2.  The  question,  To  which  of  these  two  must  the  precedence  be 
given  ?  is  still  answered  in  different  ways.  Next  to  the  more  historical 
Apologetic  method,  the  more  psychological  continues  to  claim  respectable 
representatives  ;  specially  is  the  nun.ber  of  the  friends  of  this  last  of  im- 
portance. In  reality,  even  for  the  believer  himself,  the  internal  proof  has 
the  highest  import ;  and  if  men  think  that  in  a  time  of  scepticism  and 
denial  of  miiacles  they  can  make  further  progress  by  this  means,  than  by 
another  way,  they  would  certainly  act  foolishly  if  they  did  not  choose  the 
shortest  The  tower  must  be  propped  up  on  that  side  where  it  per- 
ceptibly begins  to  lean  over.  In  general,  however,  and  usually,  it  seems 
preferable  to  place  the  historic  arguments  in  the  foreground,  and  support 
the  force  of  these  by  moral  ones.  This  is  in  complete  accord  with  the 
historical  character  of  Christianity,  and  much  more  fitted,  if  not  to  con- 
vince, at  least  to  silence,  unbelief,  than  a  continual  or  exclusive  appeal  to 
internal  reasons,  which  can  indeed  be  only  estimated  by  a  certain  tendency 


Johni.  14 ;  iii.  16;  I  Tim.  iii.  16. 


ITS  REALITY.  149 

of  spirit  and  soul.  Besides,  "the  same  thing  does  not  suit  everybody;" 
but  a  too  great  estimation  of  the  internal  proof  above  the  external,  may 
very  easily  lead  to  one-sidedness,  and  hence  to  uncertainty.70 

3.  A  last  question,  in  what  connection  must  the  proof  of  this  continued 
argument  be  considered  to  stand  to  the  Christian  belief  in  revelation,  has 
already  found  its  answer  in  the  beginning  of  this  investigation;71  an 
answer  now  established  by  the  course  of  the  demonstration  itself,  as  well 
as  by  the  nature  of  the  case,  and  by  experience.  Belief  is  in  no  degree 
the  natural  product  of  a  sum  of  well-arranged  proofs:  the  believer 
generally  comes  to  this  conviction,  not  by  the  way  of  a  logical  process  of 
thought,  but  by  that  of  a  psychological  process  of  life.  It  does  not  yet  follow 
from  this  that  the  thoughtful  belief  could  or  would  do  without  the  so- 
called  proofs.  The  proof  is  not  the  source  of  belief,  but  its  support,  and  its 
justification,  in  so  iar  as  it  points  to  its  irrefragable  ground.  It  is  indeed  an 
unfathomable  Mysticism,  when  a  man  can  only  say,  "  I  believe,  because  God 
enables  me  to  believe."  Reasonable  belief  must  be  able  to  give  account, 
not  merely  of  its  subject-matter,  but  al.-o  of  its  reasons.  If  men  will  only 
call  the  belief  thus  maintained  a  "  human  faith,"  it  must  in  every  case  be 
explained  and  legitimated  before  men  can  boldly  justify  for  others  the 
"  faith  divine." 

IV.  Or,  can  it  be  that  the  certainty,  thus  justified,  is  nothing  more  than 
mere  self-deceit  ?  For  there  is  not  wanting  to  the  believer  a  higher  con- 
firmation (comprobaiio)  of  that  which  stands  henceforth  immoveably  fixed 
for  his  inmost  consciousness.  The  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  attracts 
here  at  last  our  attention.  It  imprints  a  Divine  seal  on  that  which 
intellect  and  heart  have  recognised  as  Divine  truth.  What  is  understood 
by  this  testimony  ?  Is  there  reason  to  believe  in  its  existence  ?  and  what 
value  must  be  granted  to  it,  specially  for  Christian  Apologetics? 

i.  When  we  speak  of  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  we  think  at  once 
of  that  which  is  said  on  this  subject  in  Article  5  of  the  Netherlands  Con- 
fession :  "All  these  books  we  receive  as  holy  and  canonical,  in  order  to 
regulate  our  belief  according  to  them,  to  found  it  upon  them,  and  to 
confirm  it  by  them.  And  we  believe  without  doubt  all  that  is  contained  in 
the  same,  and  that  not  so  much  because  the  Church  accepts  and  considers 
them  as  such,  but  specially  because  the  Holy  Spirit  gives  its  the  testimony 
in  our  hearts  that  they  are  from  God."n  It  is  Calvin,  in  particular,  who 
appeals  to  this  testimony  to  prove  the  Divine  authority  of  Holy  Scripture, 
independently  of  Church  and  tradition.  If  lie,  when  he  broke  with  Rome, 
placed  on  one  side  the  authority  of  this  last,  we  must  not  therefore  think 
that  the  son  of  the  Reformation  could  produce  no  higher  than  merely 
human  reasons  for  his  certainty  of  belief.  On  the  contrary,  he  places  it 
very  clearly  and  forcibly  in  the  light  in  his  Inst.  R.C.  I.  cap.  \\\. 

70  Compare  the  important  answer  to  the  conductors  of  Waarheid  in  Liefde,  by  H.  E. 
VINKE  ;  J.  J.  VAN  OOSTERZEE,  Jaarboek  (1847) ;  J.  J.  DOEDES,  Biieven  over  Afologetuk 
Jbb.  (1850). 

71  Section  xxxii.  4,  6. 

72  Compare  Art.  4  of  Confess.  Gall. 


150  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

"  Let  this,  therefore,  remain  fixed,  that  those  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  has 
taught  internally,  acquiesce  firmly  in  Scripture,  and  that  this  Scripture 
which  is  indeed  toTfawrov,  and  cannot  lawfully  be  subjected  ei;her  to  demon- 
stration or  reason,  yet  deserves  to  obtain  among  us  certainty  by  the 
testimony  of  the  Spirit;  .  .  .  for  Scripture  does  not  of  its  own  accord  proffer 
a  more  obscure  sense  of  its  truth,  than  black  and  white  things  do  of  their 
colour;  or  sweet  and  bitter,  of  their  taste."  So  then  belief  rests,  in  the 
last  instance,  on  something  else  than  a  merely  syllogistic  proof.  "  They  act 
preposterously,  who  contend  that  by  disputing  they  are  building  up  the 
solid  faith  in  Scripture."  Full  certainty  is  however  there  where  the  Holy 
Spirit  has  made  the  truth  inwardly  known.  This  privilege  is  the  lot  of  the 
believer ;  we  speak  here  of  a  "  peculiar  revelation  of  Divine  wisdom, 
which  God  only  vouchsafes  to  His  children."  Conceived  thus  in  the  spirit  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Church,  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  a  supranatural  testimony,  which  the  Holy  Spirit  gives  to  the  heart  of  the 
believer  concerning  the  Divinity  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  which  takes  away 
from  him  every  doubt. 

2.  Specially  has  the  Dogmatics  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  almost  every 
age   attached   the   highest   value  to   this  testimony  :    J.  H.  Alstedt,    e.g. 
(t  1638),  called  it  "  demonstratio  demonstrationum  maxima,"  and,  indeed, 
as  to  the  question  whether  we  have  ground  for  accepting  the  existence  of  such 
a  testimony,  Scripture  and  experience  will  only  give  an  affirmative  answer. 
The  promise  of  the  Spirit  of  truth  is  made  by  the  Lord'to  all  His  followers, 
and  the  history  of  centuries  proves  that  it  has  constantly  been  fulfilled.73 
St.  Paul  considers  it  desirable  and  possible  that  that  belief  should  stand, 
not  in  human  wisdom,  but  in  the  power  of  God,74  and  knows  an  internal 
testimony   of  the    Holy  Spirit,   which   agrees   with   the    Christian's   own 
consciousness.75     We  find  no  different  opinion  in  St.  John.76     In  the  most 
celebrated  witnesses  to  the  faith  in  all  ages  we  meet,  then,  with  such  a  certainty 
of  faith,  that  they  would  sooner  have  doubts  as  to  their  own  existence,  than 
as  to  the  reality  of  eternal  things.    In  Justin  Martyr,  Origen,  Athanasius,  and 
specially  in  Augustine,  we  find  the  most  unquestionable  statements  respect- 
ing it.     Thus  the  last  appeals  to  a  voice,  "  intus  in  domicilio  cogitationis, 
nee  hebrsea,  nee  barbara,"77  which,  without  the  sound  of  audible  utterances, 
gives  an  'Biconditional  testimony  to  the  Mosaic  narrative  of  the  creat  on. 
A  Bernard  of  Clairvaux,  and  an  Anselm,  a  Luther  and  a  Zwingle  spoke 
in   the   same   spirit,    and,   what   decides   everything,  no   really  believing 
Christian  will  hesitate  to  accept  their  utterances,  and  to  agree  that  he 
possesses  within  himself  a  Divine  certainty,  i.e.,  a  certainty  brought  about 
by  God,  of  the  truth  of  salvation,  which  he  suffers  no  one  to  contest  or 
lake  away. 

3.  It  is  already  evident  that  the  Testimonium  Spiritus  Sancti  is  not  quite 
the  same  as  the  so-called  proof  by  experience  of  the  Divinity  of  the 
Gospel,  though  it  is  closely  allied  to  it,  and  often  mistaken  for  it.  In  the 
latter  we  find  ourselves  always  in  the  historico-empiric  domain  ;  here,  on 


n  John  vi.  45  ;  viu  37,  38;  xvi.  12—15.  '*  l  Jo^n  v-  ° — IO- 

74  i  Cor.  ii.  4,  5.  n  Conf.  xi.  3. 

74  Rom.  viii.  1 6. 


ITS  REALITY.  151 

the  contrary,  in  the  domain  of  metaphysics,  and  we  speak  no  longer  of 
proper  proof,  but  of  a  Divine  attestation  of  the  faith,  which  is  legitimated 
and  justified  by  external  and  internal  proofs.  We  enter  thus  into  the 
inmost  sanctuary  of  the  spiritual  life,  with  respect  to  which  the  words  of 
Spener  are  most  emphatically  true  :  "Of  this  little  can  be  spoken,  since  no 
one  understands  it  but  he  who  feels  it.  It  is  a  new  name,  which  nobody 
knows  but  he  who  receives  it."  It  does  not,  however,  follow  from  this 
that  we  appeal  to  a  kind  of  inner  light  in  the  sense  of  the  mystics  and 
fanatics,  against  whose  "  fatal  ravings "  and  "  oracles  sought  from  the 
clouds,"  Calvin  had  already  raised  a  loud  and  earnest  voice  of  warning. 
The  fanatic  appeals  to  an  immediate  magical  operation  of  God,  places  this 
inner  voice  of  God  far  above,  often  in  opposition  to,  the  letter  of  Scripture, 
and  against  all  refutation  veils  himself  in  the  mists  of  a  dim  feeling.  We, 
on  the  contrary,  do  not  in  any  degree  think  here  of  an  entirely  extra- 
ordinary immediate  revelation  from  above,  but  of  a  testimony,  which  the 
Holy  Spirit  brings  to  the  Christian  in  a  psychological  way,  not  in  con- 
tradiction to,  but  in  harmony  with,  the  word  of  Scripture  ;  of  a  certainty  of 
belief,  in  other  words,  which,  just  as  belief  itself,  is  of  a  higher  than  earthly 
origin.  He  who  in  this  sense  continues  to  assert  that  he  has  never  yet 
perceived  such  a  testimony,  would  deserve  nc  other  answer  but  "  tant  pis 
pour  vous." 

4.  Only  in  this  respect  the  Church  Dogmatics  will  need  a  closer  and 
better  definition  and  demonstration  that — according  to  Christian  experience 
itself — this  testimony  is  to  be  considered  in  reference,  not  to  the  Holy 
Scripture  en  bloc,  but  to  its  religious  and  soteriological  contents ;  in  other 
words,  to  the  revelation  contained  in  it.  "  The  inner  testimony  can  never 
assure  us  that  no  sacred  writer  has  made  a  mistake  in  memory  in  purely 
historical  matters,  that  Judas  Galilseus  rose  up  after  Theudas,  etc.78  It  can 
only  refer  to  that  which  belongs  to  the  Christian  consciousness,  and  is  a 
matter  of  Christian  life  "  (Tvvesten).  We  shall  see  later  ;  Holy  Scripture 
has,  along  with  its  Divine,  a  human  side  as  well,  and  contains  a  number 
of  elements,  which,  considered  in  themselves,  are  of  no  particular  import- 
ance for  the  spiritual  life.  He  who  will  now  prove  the  Divine  authority  and 
truth  of  all  this  by  an  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  runs  the 
risk  of  being  reduced  to  an  absurdity.  If  in  the  age  of  the  Reformation 
the  ideas  of  revelation  and  Holy  Scripture  were  too  much  confused  one 
with  another  (§  xxviii.  i),  it  is  the  vocation  of  a  better  theology  to  help  to 
dispel  the  cloud  by  a  more  accurate  distinction.  The  Holy  Spirit  living  in 
the  heart  of  the  Christian  gives  testimony  to  the  religious  soteriological 
contents  of  Scripture  ;  in  other  words,  to  the  historical  revelation  which 
the  Scripture  makes  known  to  us. — For  these  reasons  it  is  better  to  treat 
of  the  Testimonium  Spiritus  Sancti  in  treating  of  Apocalyptics  raiher  than 
of  Bibliology. 

This  nearer  definition,  however,  makes  no  change  in  the  nature  of  the  fact. 
The  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  Christian  internal  certainty,  produced  by 
God  Himself,  concerning  the  D trinity  of  the  revelation  in  Christ,  unfolded  in 
Holy  Scripture.  The  witness  here  is  thus,  not  a  man,  nor  intellect,  reason, 

78  Acts  v.  36. 


152  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

or  conscience,  still  less  the  natural  feeling  in  man,  but  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  testimony  concerns  the  truth  and  divinity  of  the  word  of  life,  learnt 
from  Holy  Scripture.  They,  in  and  by  whom  this  testimony  is  received, 
are  exclusively  believing  Christians  ;  these  all,  but  also  these  only. 

5.  What  has  been  said  enables  us  to  explain  the  later  polemics  against 
this  doctrine,  and  to  estimate  the  value  of  its  peculiar  presentment  in  the 
present  time.  In  the  track  of  the  Arminians  and  Socinians  it  was  warmly 
disputed  by  the  Rationalists  of  the  preceding  century,  whilst  Supra- 
naturalism  has  always  identified  it  with  the  so-called  internal  proof. 
Michaelis  (ob.  1791)  declared  that  he,  however  sincerely  convinced  of 
the  Divinity  of  Christianity,  had  never  yet  heard  such  a  testimony,  and 
Reimarus  (ob.  1768)  asserted  that  the  Turk  undoubtedly  felt  a  similar 
testimony  when  he  read  the  Koran.  These  polemics  had  notably  their 
source  in  a  naturalistic  misunderstanding  of  the  nature  and  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  but  found,  at  the  same  time,  their  force  in  the  often  faulty 
manner  in  which  the  doctrine  of  the  Testimonium  Spiritus  Sancti  was 
presented.  This  last  was  gradually  despised-  and  forgotten,  until,  spe- 
cially under  the  influence  of  Schleiermacher,  it  entered  on  a  new  period 
of  esteem  and  development.  In  Holland  it  was  brought  into  favour, 
though  in  a  very  altered  form,  by^  the  Groningen  school,79  and  was 
particularly  developed  in  a  manner  of  his  own  by  Professor  Scholten.80  He 
described  it  as  "  the  testimony  of  reason  and  conscience,  which,  developed 
and  purified  by  communion  with  Christ,  independently  of  all  external 
authority,  recognised  the  religious  contents  of  Scripture  as  truth,"  and  in 
this  sense  he  explained  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  ultimate 
ground  of  faith.  Certainly  not  quite  the  same  as  the  "testimonium  unicum 
solis  Christ!  Spiritu  renatis  proprium,  et  his  solis  cognitum  "  (Ursinus)  of 
the  Theology  of  the  Reformation.81  This  is  not  the  place  to  renew  an  old 
strife,  nor  to  show  the  justice  of  the  sentence  which  was  then  pronounced, 
that  it  is  thus  merely  "  man  himself  who  testifies  of  man  to  man  "  (La 
Saussaye).  Whatever  the  value  of  the  testimony  may  be  which  is  given  by 
the  reason  and  conscience  of  the  duly  developed  man  to  the  Gospel, 
the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  something  totally  different  and  higher. 
It  is  the  fruit  of  a  supranatural  operation,  i.e,  of  one  which  is  not  of 
man,  but  of  God,  however  much  it  may  agree  absolutely  with  the  natural 
disposition  and  needs  of  man.  Appealing  to  this  testimony,  the  Reformed 
Church  thus  takes  its  stand  in  no  degree  upon  a  merely  subjective,  but  upon 
an  objective  ground  of  faith.  It  does  not  appeal  to  that  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  testifies  in  Scripture,  but  to  that  which  the  (personal)  Holy  Spirit 
testifies  in  the  believer  with  regard  to  Scripture  and  the  revelation  con- 
tained in  it.  By  that  appeal  it  seeks  not  to  establish  its  belief  in  the  truth 
of  the  written  word,  "in  so  far  as  this  commends  itself  as  true  and  Divine 
to  the  intellect  and  heart  of  every  one" — for  this,  finally,  would  become  a 
belief  in  one's  own  authority,  or  indeed  a  belief  in  oneself,  instead  of  in  the 

TO  See  its  Compend.  Dogm.  et  Apol.  Chr.,  3  ed.  (1848),  p.  180. 
80  See  his  Oratio  (1843)  de  Rel.  Chr.  sua  ipsius  divinitatis  in  mente  humand 
and  Leer  der  H.  K.,  4  ed.  (1861),  bl.  115—233. 

M  Comp.  Van  Toorenenbergen,  Bijdragen  enz.,  bl.  94,  sqq. 


ITS   REALITY  153 

testimony  of  God  above  and  beyond  us — but  to  build  the  certainty  of  the 
Christian  concerning  the  divinity  of  God's  Word  upon  an  immoveable 
rock.  "  The  witness  is  not  any  man,  nor  our  reason,  nor  sense,  but  the 
testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  we  acquiesce,  therefore,  in  the  authority  of 
God,  because  we  are  persuaded  that  Scripture  is  from  God,  and  lor  this 
reason  we  believe,  not  because  we  ourselves  see  that  those  things  which 
are  lound  in  Holy  Scripture  are  true.  We  believe  God,  not  ourselves." 
(Calvin.) 

6.  But  now  it  cannot  be  difficult  to  define  the  value  of  this  testimony, 
both  generally,  and  also  for  tiie  work  of  Apologetics.     As  to  this  last,  if  no 
other   work  is  granted    to   it   than  that  of  defending  Christianity  against 
the  definite  contradiction  of  unbelief,  then  the  natural  evidential  force  of  this 
testimony  can  only  be  relative  ;  "  then  arguments  must  be  produced,  not 
revelations  "  (Burman).     We  can  scarcely  hope  to  bring  others  to  belief  by 
means  Oi  that  which  only  possesses  irrefragable  certainty  for  him  who  is 
already  a  believer.     The  testimony  of  the  Holy   Spirit  is  thus  no  argu- 
mmtum  comprobativum  for  others,  but  a  sigillum  reritatis  for  ourselves.     As 
such,  however,  it  has  for  the  Christian  a  value  which  surpasses  every  other 
argument.     If  the  evidence  of  experience  is,  as  it  were,  the  proof  of  the 
sum,  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  as   an  Amen  of  God  to  the  cer- 
tainty of  belief  already  properly  legitimated  by  external  and  internal  proofs. 
By  it  the  believer  is  so  surely  convinced  of  the  truth  of  revelation,  that  to 
the  question,  "Whence  knovvest  thou  that?"  he  can  with  Luther  answer, 
"  Because  I  hear  it  in  the  Word  and   Sacraments,  and  because  the  Holy 
Spirit  also  testifies  to  it  in  my  heart."      It  is  not  so  much  an  accessory  proof, 
even  superior  to  all  proofs,  as  the  crown  and  seal  upon  them,  "obsignatur 
Sp.  S.  testimonio "  (Calvin).     But  even  on  this  account  is  it  the  source 
and  support  of  an  evidence  which  can  scarcely  be  explained,  but  can  siill 
less  be  doubted.      To  the  question,  whether  the  Christian  has  a  supra- 
natural  security  for  his  belief,  we  must,  therefore,  not  hesitate  to  give  an 
affirmative  answer.     Even  more,  "We  shall   never  be'.ieve  with  a  sound 
and  faithful  belief,  if  God  does  not  incline  our  hearts,  and  we  believe  as 
soon  as  He  inclines  them.   This  David  knew  full  well  when  he  said,  '  Incline 
my  heart,  O  Lord,  to  Thy  testimonies ' "  (Pascal). 

7.  Then  only  could  the  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  be 
justly  called  "  the  Achilles  heel  of  the  Protestant  system  "  (Strauss),  if 
indeed  no  answer  whatever  could  be  given  to  the  question  as  to  the 
guarantee  that  that  testimony  is  really  Divine,  not  human  or  devilish.     But 
the  testimony  we  mean  has  a  certainty  in  itself,  which  goes  far  beyond  all 
description  :   "  The  Holy  Spirit  gives  in  such  wise  testimony  to  our  spirit, 
that  we  at  once  know  that  it  is  given  by  Him  and  is  Divine  "  (Kromayer).  If  a 
new  testimony  were  still  required   to  prove  that  this  is  Divine,  the  same 
demand  could  be  made  on  this  new  testimony,  and  so  on  ad  infinitum. 
As  the  sun  is  seen  by  its  own  light,   so  is  the  testimony  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  perceived  in  its  own  force  by  every  one  who  is  acquainted  with 
the   distinction   between   flesh   and   spirit,  nature   and   grace.      Besides, 
the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  are  there  to  show  that  the  testimony  and  working 
of  that  Spirit  in  the  heart  is  no  mere  idle  fancy.     It  is  sometimes  diffi- 
cult, but  certainly  not  impossible,  to  recognise  with  the  inner  ear  the  voice 


154  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

of  God,  as  distinguished  from  that  of  flesh  and  blood ;  and  he  who  hears 
it,  knows  it  as  well  as  a  man,  e.g.,  can  distinguish  in  his  own  heart  the 
voice  of  love  from  that  of  natural  selfishness.  It  is  true  this  inner  con- 
sciousness, not  less  than  the  truth  of  salvation  itself,  always  in  the  last 
instance  remains  a  matter  of  belief;  but  also,  of  that-  which  the  Christian 
in  this  domain  can  prove  to  no  one  else,  he  can  nevertheless  be  convinced 
for  himself  on  such  firm  grounds  that  he  can  safely  speak  of  a  "  cognitio 
simpliciter  certa"  (Buddeus). — Lastly,  if  it  be  now  said  that  men  can- 
not possibly  give  this  certainty  of  belief  to  themselves,  we  shall  not 
absolutely  contradict  this,  but  merely  remark  that  it  usually  is  not  gained 
at  the  beginning,  but  only  when  some  progress  has  been  made  in  the  way 
of  faith.  The  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  perceived  before,  but 
after,  we  believe ;  it  is  not  the  ground  on  which  belief  is  built,  but  tiie  last 
seal  which  is  impressed  on  belief;  and  hence,  we  do  not  begin,  but  end, 
our  maintenance  of  the  reality  of  Revelation  with  the  discussion  of  it. 
We  usually  attain  to  belief  by  a  psychological,  and  not  by  a  dialectical, 
way ;  the  personal  acceptance  of  the  Gospel  is  a  step — if  you  will,  a  leap 
— to  which  God  calls  and  leads  us,  yet  which  \ye  must  make  of  our- 
selves, and  willingly,  for  reasons  which  justify  themselves  fully  to  our  con- 
sciousness. These  reasons  are  not  the  cause  of  internal  belief,  but  they 
justify  it  to  ourselves  and  others  ;  and  upon  the  reasonable  conviction,  thus 
proved,  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  imprints  a  seal,  which  at  last 
makes  even  the  possibility  of  doubt  to  cease.  "  Talis  est  persuasio,  quse 
rationes  non  requirat ;  talis  notitia,  cui  optima  ratio  constet ;  talis  denique 
sensus,  qui  nisi  ex  coelesti  revelatione  nasci  non  queat "  (Calvin). 

Compare,  as  to  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  besides  the  works  already  named, 
the  essays  of  H.  WITSIUS  in  his  Miscell.  Sat,  ii.,  pp.  126—128  ;  of  S.  WERENFELS, 
Opuscc.  Theoll.  i.,  pp.  157—162  ;  also  J.  J.  VAN  OosTERZEE.  Jaarbb.  1845,  I*H6,  1847; 
a  treatise  of  KI.AIBER  in  the  Jahrbuch  filr  Deutsche  7 hcol.  (1857),  i.,  pp.  1—54  ;  one  of 
GESZ,  in  the  A.ologet.  Beitrage,  published  by  him  and  Riggen bach  (1863),  pp.  57 — 88; 
ROTHE,  a.  a.  O.,  pp.  139 — 144.  F.  H.  R.  FRANK,  System  der  Chr.  Gxuissheit  (1870),  I. 
We  meet,  too,  with  noteworthy  observations  on  the  authority  of  Scripture  in  an  essay 
by  G.  J.  VlNKE,  in  the  Proceedings  oftheEv.  Alii.  (1867),  p.  261,  sqq.  Upon  the  whole 
subject  treated  in  this  section  we  may  consult  H.  VON  DER  GOLTZ,  Gottes  Offenbarung 
durch  heilige  Geschichte,  u.  s.  w.,  ii.  Th.  (1868),  and  the  best  known  Apologetic  writings 
of  later  years,  most  of  which  have  been  already  mentioned,  but  specially  those  of 
LUTHARDT,  DELITZSCH,  and  CHRISTLIEB.  For  the  history  of  Apologetics,  see 
HAGENBACH,  Thcol.  EncycL,  §  81,  and  the  works  there  quoted  ;  to  which  may  be 
added  G.  H.  VAN  SENDEN,  Geschied.  der  verded.  van  Bybel  en  ofenb.  2  dd.  (1827— 
1840.) 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

What  does  the  history  of  Apologetics  teach  as  to  the  best  method  of  defending  the 
Christian  belief  in  revelation  ?— What  er.d  must  the  Apologist  purpose  to  himself,  specially 
in  our  time  ?  and  by  what  way  can  that  end  be  reached  ? — The  import  and  importance  of 
St.  John  vii.  17.— Why  cannot  the  existence  and  continuance  of  the  Christian  Church  be 
explained  on  entirely  natural  grounds  ? — Is  not  the  appeal  to  the  rapid  spread  of  Christianity 
weakened  bv  that  to  the  careful  preparation  for  it,  or  viceversd  ?-  -To  what  points  must  we 
give  special  heed  in  reference  to  the  beneficent  working  of  Christianity?- -The  relation  of 
the  proof- from  miracles  to  the  historic  proof  in  general.  — How  to  decide  upon  the  old 
distinction  between  miracula  natures  et  gratite.— What  must  we  think  of  the  Christian 
narratives  of  miracles  of  later  times  ? — What  do  the  Biblical  miracles  prove  ?  for  whom, 


ITS   EXCELLENCE.  155 

and  on  what  conditions? — How  can  the  stiffhecked  "  Miraculophobia"  be  explained,  and 
how  best  combated? — The  true  essence  of  foretelling,  in  conjunction  with  the  idea  of 
prophesy. — The  possibility,  recognisability,  reality,  and  demonstrative  force  of  foretelling 
considered  more  closely. — Is  the  force  of  this  proof  fully  equal  to  that  of  the  proof  from 
miracles? — Defence  of  the  prophecies  of  Jesus  Himself  against  the  most  known  ob  ections 
of  our  time,  as  well  as  that  of  the  most  notable  miracles  in  the  history  of  His  life. — How 
to  establish  the  reality  of  the  Revelation  in  the  Apostolic  and  pre-Christian  records,  and 
why  these  are  now  first  spoken  of.— What  sides  of  the  external  proof  are  specially  eluci- 
dated and  strengthened  by  the  internal  ? — Have  we  not  sufficient  in  the  last  alone  ? — The 
one-sidedness  in  exalting  one  set  of  proof  above  and  at  the  cost  of  the  other. — Import  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  history  of  the  birth  of  Evangelical 
Protestantism.  — Necessity  lor  an  exact  distinction  in  this  domain  between  historic  and 
saving  faith. — Further  elucidation  of  the  manner  in  which  the  doctrine  of  the  Testimoniiun 
Spiritus  Sancti  has  been  conceived  and  employed  by  Professor  Scholten. — Union  and 
difference  between  it  and  the  so-called  proof  by  experience. — How  far  djes  the  preference 
shown  by  many  in  our  days  lor  the  appeal  to  this  testimony  deserve  the  name  of  a  happy 
phenomenon  ? — Standpoint,  weapons,  and  force  of  Apologetica  semper  victrix. 


SECTION   XXXIII. — ITS   EXCELLENCE. 

The  great  excellence  of  the  Revelation  in  Christ,  proved  by  a 
number  of  evidences,  is  raised  beyond  the  reach  of  all  contradic- 
tion or  eulogy.  This  appears  already  from  its  relat'on  to  general 
revelation,  which  it  both  confirms  and  completes  ;  still  more  from 
its  contents  and  tendency,  considered  in  connexion  with  the 
spiritual  wants  of  man  ;  most  of  all,  perhaps,  by  a  careful  com- 
parison with  everything  else,  which,  either  correctly  or  incorrectly, 
is  recognised  as  special  revelation.  The  predicate  of  perfectibility 
can  therefore  only  be  granted  to  the  individual  or  common  opinion 
about  its  contents  ;  but  in  no  case  to  the  revelation  itself,  which 
must  rather  be  called,  not  only  the  highest,  but  also,  in  a  certain 
sense,  the  last  manifestation  of  God's  counsel  and  will  for  the  salva- 
tion of  mankind. 

1.  The  demonstration  of  the  great  Excellence  of  special  revelation  follows 
that  of  its  Necessity,  Possibility,  and  Reality.    This,  too,  is  here  necessary, 
not  only  because  it  is  so  often  disregarded,  but  also  because  it  strengthens 
the  already  acquired  conviction  of  the  divinity   of  the  revelation,  and  at 
the  same  time  furnishes  the  opportunity  of  duly  judging  the  question  as  to 
the  perfectibility  of  Christianity. 

2.  The  relation  of  special  revelation  to  the  general  (§  29)  at  once  confirms 
its  great  excellence.     If  it  was  irreconcilably  contradictory  to  this  last,  we 
could  not  possibly  believe  it.     But  the  two  form,  like  two  books  of  different 
compass,  but  from  the  same  maker,  one  complete  work.     On  one  side  the 


156  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

testimony  of  the  general  revelation  is  confirmed  by  the  special  What  it 
has  taught  concerning  God's  existence  and  majesty,  is  here  proved  by  facts, 
which  morally  compel  us  to  believe  in  a  living  and  free  God,  and  make  us 
see  his  Power,  Wisdom,  and  Goodness  in  greater  splendour.  The  claim  of 
God,  felt  by  the  conscience,  sounds  to  our  ears  much  louder  still  in  the 
law  of  Moses,  but,  above  all,  in  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  Thus,  special  reve- 
lation seals  and  explains  that  which  general  revelation  has  already  expressed. 
Besides,  that  on  which  this  has  been  silent,  the  other  proclaims,  and  thus 
the  ordinary  revelation  has  been  satisfactorily  completed  by  the  extraor- 
dinary. The  unsolved  questions,  which  were  there  left  (§  30),  are  here 
sufficiently  answered,  and  the  hope,  which  the  creation  had  excited,  is 
turned  into  certainty  by  the  Gospel.  We  understand  the  language  of 
nature  much  better,  since  it  has  been  elucidated  by  Jesus  ;  the  revelation 
of  God  in  history  is  not  broken,  but  explained  and  completed,  by  the 
founding  of  Christianity  ;  and  the  revelation  in  mankind  receives  in  the 
manifestation  of  Christ  alike  its  crown  and  its  key.  Thus  the  special 
revelation  is  connected  with  the  general,  without,  hoivevtr,  losing  itself  in 
it,  or  being  explicable  by  it  alone.  The  methodistical  contrasting,  as  well  as 
the  rationalistic  identification,  of  Nature  and  Revelation  must  therefore  be 
resisted  in  principle. 

3.  Still  more  does  the  contents  of  Saving  Revelation  plead  for  its  in- 
valuable worth.  The  cardinal  point  which  here  concerns  us,  in  no  way  con- 
sists in  this,  that  it  announces  a  more  pure  conception  of  God,  prescribes  a 
more  excellent  morality,  or  teaches  us  to  build  the  hope  of  immortality  on 
firmer  grounds.  The  proper  centre  of  gravity  lies  here,  not  in  the  universal 
religious,  but  in  the  special  soteriological  domain.  It  is  the  announce- 
ment of  an  unparalleled  fact,  which  has  made  the  Gospel1  to  be  the  Gospel, 
a  Gospel  not  so  much  of  the  providence  as  of  the  grace  of  Gjd.  That  fact 
is  the  manifestation  of  all  the  virtues  of  God,  the  highest  glory  of  belief,  and 
the  basis  of  the  purest  morality.  The  contents  of  the  Revelation  cannot  thus 
possibly  be  conceived  a  priori,  while  a.  posteriori  it  exhibits  a  character  ever 
more  worthy  of  God,  the  better  it  is  conceived.2 — Besides,  these  contents 
are  imparted  in  an  historical  form.  Scripture  has  not  incorrectly  been 
called  "  the  history  of  God  in  humanity."  This  peculiarity  of  Revelation 
inc  eases  its  clearness,8  guarantees  its  certainty,4  and  promotes  the  power  ot 
its  efficacy.  Nothing,  indeed,  makes  more  impression  than  facts,  far  more 
than  the  most  beautiful  abstract  ideas,  as  may  be  seen  by  a  number  ot 
instances  from  the  history  of  the  Church  and  missions. — It  at  the  same 
time  deserves  notice  that  the  contents  of  the  Revelation  have  gradually 
been  brought  to  notice.  Thus,  too,  it  testifies  of  the  same  God  who  has 
willed  that  there  should  be  no  gap,  but  as  little  a  leap,  in  nature.  In  the 
same  manner  the  revelation  of  the  Gospel  did  not  all  of  a  sudden  appear ; 
it  had  its  preparation  before  it  came  forth,  and  was  itself  subject  to  the  law 
of  development.  The  Patriarchal,  the  Mosaic,  and  the  Christian  periods 
exhibit  each  its  peculiar  character.  Each  period  receives  as  much  light 
as  it  requires  and  can  bear,  and  at  the  same  time  prepares  the  way  for  the 

1  I  John  iv.  10 ;  John  iii.  16.  3  I  Cor.  xiii.  II. 

*  I  Cor.  ii.  9  ;  Rom.  xi.  33.  *  i  John  i.  I — 3. 


ITS  EXCELLENCE.  157 

succeeding  one.  The  form  and  the  course  of  revelation  are  always  in 
harmony  with  the  condition  and  capacity  of  those  to  whom  it  is  vouch- 
safed. Voices  from  heaven,  dreams,  visions,  which  now  are  the  cause  of 
numberless  questions,  were  undoubtedly,  in  the  earliest  times,  better 
suited  than  any  other  means  to  be  the  bearers  of  the  revelation.  First 
comes  the  Holy  Spirit  over  the  Prophets,  then  visibly  rests  on  Christ, 
henceforth  to  dwell  constantly  in  those  to  whom  He  has  been  given  by 
Christ.  Thus  the  whole  course  of  the  dispensation  of  salvation  may  be 
called  one  continual  accommodation  of  God  to  human  needs  and  capacities. 

4.  With  these  contents  accords  in  every  respect  the  Tendency  of  the 
Revelation.     It  indeed  aims  at  nothing  less  than  the  enlightening,  com- 
forting, and  re-creating  of  every  sinner  with  whom  it  comes  in  contact,  and 
the  union  of  all  these  in  one  boundless  kingdom  of  God  ;  and  that  end  it 
is  fully  suited  to  attain.     It  addresses  itself  to  the  whole  man,  and  gives 
satisfaction  to  the  wants  of  intellect,  heart,  and  conscience,  which  are  always 
the  same.     The  doctrine,  commands,  and  rites  of  Christianity  exhibit  no 
exclusive  local  or  national  character,  but  are  suited  for  every  nation  and 
age.    The  Christian  religion  bears  the  double  stamp  of  Universality  and  Hu- 
manity, and  is  plainly  marked  out  to  be  the  religion  of  the  world. 

5.  Especially  will  a  Comparison  with  that  which  elsewhere  has  been 
reverenced  as  revelation,  make  that  of  Christianity  stand  out  in  all  its  sub- 
limity.     No  other  religion  or  philosophy  has  had  such  an  exceedingly 
marked  beneficial  effect.      In  Christianity  all  distinction  between  esoteric 
and   exoteric  wholly   vanishes,    and   all   are    called   to   be   a  royal  and 
priestly  people.     Heathenism  could  by  no  means  satisfy  the  highest  aspira- 
tions of  spirit  and  heart,  as  is  seen  from  the  self-confession  which  was  made 
by  Clemens  Romanus  in  the  first  of  his  homilies,  and  from  what  Justin 
Martyr  relates   concerning   his  own  prior  restless  seeking   and  striving. 
Even  the  severely  Ethical  character  of  Christianity,  as  contrasted  with  the 
preponderating  aesthetic  tendency  of  Hellenism,  is  in  this  respect  of  import. 
With  the  Romans,  religion  was  at  the  best  a  state  machine,  but  in  no 
case  was  it  a  principle  of  life.     Compare  the  much-lauded  essay  of  Marcus 
\urelius,  IIpos  (O.VTOV,  with  the  riiOral  maxims  of  the  Gospel,  and  we  shall 
feel  what  is  the  difference  between  Divine  and  human.     "  The  Gospel  in 
itself  is,  in  its  morality,  always  true,  always  certain,  always  unique,  always 
like  itself"  (Rousseau).    Of  Islam  ism  we  need  not  speak  more  here  (comp. 
§  xxv.  7);  but  even  Mosaism,  raised  as   it  is  far  above  Polytheism,  yet 
always  stands  below  Christianity.     Truth  it  contains,  but  in  shadow  and 
image  ;  holiness  it  requires,  but  cannot  properly  bring  that  about,  where 
the  highest  revelation  of  love  is  still  withheld,  and  thus  the  principle  of 
responsive  love  is  not  yet  really  aroused.  And  why  more  ?  From  the  stand- 
point of  Christian  belief  in  revelation  can  the  so-called  religious  (§  xxv.  9) 
indifferentism  of  Lessing  and  others  hardly  escape  the  reproach  of  great 
ingratitude.     The  English  Deist,  Bolingbroke,  spoke  with  at  least  a  larger 
spirit  of  appreciation,  when  he  said,   "  If  Christianity  were  a  merely  human 
discovery,  it  would  certainly  be  the  loveliest  and  most  beneficent  with  which 
mankind  has  ever  been  deceived  to  its  own  real  benefit." 

6.  For  all  these  reasons,  then,  we  cannot  possibly  ascribe  to  Christian 
Revelation  the  predicate  of  Perfectibility.      We  have  already  seen,  in  §  19, 


!^8  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

in  what  sense  and  on  what  grounds  this  must  be  ascribed  to  Dogmatics. 
But  it  is  quite  another  matter  with  Revelation,  and  Religion  itself  in  the 
objective  sense  of  the  words.     This  always  is   remarkable,  that  its  true 
confessors,  as  distinguished  from  so  many  others,  do  not  expect  another 
more  perfect  religion.     The  noblest  heathen  had  shown  the  deepest  need 
of  higher  light ;  Israel  lived  almost  exclusively  by  means  of  its  expectation 
of  salvation  ;  many  a  religion  of  the  present  day  in  the  East  shows  a  presage 
of  its  coming  end.      But    the    Christian,  however  much  he   may   expect 
and  desire  endless  progress,   will  notwithstanding  hesitate  to  speak  of  an 
objective  perfectibility  of  the  Revelation  of  Salvation.      No  wonder !  it  is 
perfect,  i.e.,  not  complete,  but  sufficient ;  and  it  diffuses  so  much  light,  that 
there  is  neither  right  nor  ground  for  hoping  for  a  higher  revelation.     The 
contrary  appears,  partly  from  the  manner  in  which  Christianity  itself  has 
appeared  as  God's  highest  and  last  revelation  ; 5  this  is  often  asserted  with 
utterances  the  more  remarkable,  because  Christ  Himself  was  lowly  of  heart, 
and  has  plainly  foreseen  the  struggle  of  His  Gospel:6  partly,  again,  from 
the  character  of  this  revelation  as  grounded  on  facts,  which  are  irrevocable, 
eternal  in  import,  and  besides,  of  such  a  nature,  that  we  cannot  possibly 
conceive  of  anything  higher  in  this  domain  :  partly,  in    conclusion,  from 
history  and   experience,  which  show  that  every  inclination  to  exalt  itself 
above  Christianity   is  destructive   both  to  belief  and  morality.     He  who 
rejects  the  Son  has  soon  lost  the  Father  too,  and  he  who  returns  to  Deism 
sinks  almost  inevitably  into  the  opened  arms  of  Pantheism  and  Atheism. 
The  miserable  results  of  the  attempts  of  Theophilanthropists,  St.  Simonians, 
Friends  of  Light,  Mormons,  etc.,  is  an  involuntary  homage  to  the  Chris- 
tianity which  they  deny.     Just  as  superficial  and  hopeless  is  the  attempt  to 
build   up  on   the   ruins  of.  Christianity  a  so-called  independent  morality. 
We  hear  even  the  apostles  of  unbelief,  as  if  in  contradiction  of  themselves, 
uttering  warm  eulogies  of  Jesus,  and  granting  that  there  is  little  chance  of 
expecting  a  r.igher  religion.     "  No  grand  and  completely  original  religious 
creation  will  rise  in  our  civilisation.     .     .     .     Religions,  like  the  spider, 
require  a  point  to  which  to  fasten  their  web.     This  point  will  be  wanting 
in  all  new  attempts.     Christianity  alone,  then,  rests  in  the  possession  of  a 
future."    (Renan.) 

7.  True,  many  objections  are  brought  against  this  perfection  of  Christian 
Revelation,  as  well  from  the  speculative  as  from  the  empiric  standpoint. 
On  the  first  side  it  is  thought  impossible  that  in  any,  least  of  all  in 
the  highest,  domain  of  life  the  Perfect  should  at  once  be  attained.  "  The 
privilege  of  being  a  non  plus  ultra  for  all  times  must  be  refused  to  every 
historical  personality  without  exception"  (Strauss).  And  certainly,  if  Jesus 
Christ  was  nothing  but  man,  confined  within  the  borders  of  finite  per- 
fection, we  must  at  least  admit  the  possibility  that  a  greater  than  He  ma; 
appear  in  the  domain  of  religion.  The  proposition  that  Christianity  may 
truly  and  for  all  t'me  be  called  the  highest  religion  of  humanity,  cannot 
possibly  be  maintained  from  an  anti-supranaturalistic  standpoint.  It  is, 


*  Matt.  xxi.  37  ;  John  xiv.  6  ;  Gal.  i.  8,  9 ;  Heb.  xiii.  8,  9. 

•  Matt.  x.  34 — 36. 

7  I  Cor.  ii.  9 ;  I  John  i.  I — 3. 


ITS  RELATION  TO  REASON.  159 

however,  a  different  thing  when  we  cling  to  the  revealed  character  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  there  take  at  once  into  account  the  promises  of  the  Lord  Him- 
self, concerning  the  final  triumph  of  His  cause.  In  the  domain  of  science 
infinite  progress  may  be  conceivable :  quite  different  is  that  of  religion  and 
morality,  founded  on  a  higher  revelation.  There  is  not  a  single  reason  for 
calling  it  d  priori  inconceivable  that  here  the  highest  has  been  given  once 
for  all,  and  that  this  can  only  be  approached,  but  never  excelled.  As  little 
has  Experience  sufficient  ground  to  contradict  stubbornly  the  confession  of 
the  perfection  of  this  revelation.  It  shows,  indeed,  that  many  separate 
themselves  from  Christianity,  but  certainly  not  that  these  gain  a  standpoint 
higher  than  the  Christian.  Christianity  is  not  below  the  level  of  the 
time,  but  the  time  is  much  below  the  level  of  Christianity.  Even  this 
apostacy  is  prophesied,  condemns  itself,  and  traces  out  the  often  obscure, 
but  always  sure,  way  to  new  conquests  of  truth. 

Comp.  STIRM,  a.  a.  O.,  pp.  499 — 568  ;  E.  ZELLER,  Die  Annahme  einer  Perfectibililat 
des  Christcnthums,  u.  s.  w.,  in  the  Thcol.  Jakrb.  i.  (1842),  pp.  I — 54;  LANGE,  Dogm.  i., 
§  64  t'f;  C.  A.  G.  VON  ZEZSCHVVITZ,  Zur  Apologie  der  Offenb.  (1865),  pp.  113 — 172;  E. 
BERSIER,  La  Morale  Independante,  in  the  Proceedings  of  the  Evan.  Alliance  (1867)  j  Dr. 
THOMAS,  The  Genius  of  the  Gospel. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Testimonies  as  to  the  excellence  of  Christian  Revelation,  even  on  the  part  of  un- 
believers.— What  is  properly  new  in  this  Revelation  ?  and  in  that  new  what  is  great, 
beautiful,  and  efficient  ?  How  far  then  can  we  thus  speak  of  the  perfectibility  of  Christi- 
anity ? — Can  it,  even  from  the  Empiric  standpoint,  be  proved  that  in  Christ  there  has 
really  been  given  God's  highest  and  last  Revelation  ? — Whence  comes  the  violent  oppo- 
sition to  Revelation,  especially  in  our  days  ? 


SECTION   XXXIV. — ITS   RELATION  TO  REASON. 

Human  reason  has  towards  the  Revelation  of  Salvation  its  un- 
mistakable rights,  but  at  the  same  time  its  sacred  duties.  It  is  as 
unchristian  to  prescribe  to  it  an  unconditional  silence  in  this  domain, 
as  it  is  unreasonable  to  give  it  the  deciding  voice  in  respect  to 
questions  which  are  wholly  or  partially  beyond  its  view.  As  the 
Revelation  of  Salvation  exhibits  a  supranatural  character,  so  must 
the  Christian  belief  in  Revelation  be  rational,  but  for  that  very 
reason  averse  in  principle  to  all  Rationalism.  Built  upon  well- 
established  testimonies,  this  belief  must  raise  itself  as  far  as  pos- 
sible to  an  independent  insight  into  its  subject-matter  ;  but  where 
this  cannot  be  done,  or  can  be  done  only  imperfectly,  it  must 
finally  bow  to  the  words  of  Revelation.  Thus  from  the  Christian 


160  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

dogmatic  standpoint  we  can  as  little  approve  the  separation  as 
the  confusion  of  belief  and  knowledge.  The  mutual  penetration 
and  conciliation  of  both  must  rather  be  the  object  to  be  un- 
ceasingly striven  after,  and  this  will  be  more  successfully  attained 
as  the  Revelation  of  Salvation  is  more  regarded  in  the  light  of 
Holy  Scripture. 

1.  Only  one  question  still  remains  for  us ;  that  of  the  relation  which 
revelation  has  in  regard  to  reason ; — and  to  answer  this  question  it  is  not 
superfluous,  first  of  all,   to  say  what  we  undersand  by  the  snpranatural 
character  of  Revelation,  and  what  by  Reason.     The  different  use,  however, 
which  is  made  of  these  words  has  in  no  slight  degree  increased  the  con- 
fusion of  language,  and  while  on  one  side  we  are  told,  as,  e.g.,  by  Renan, 
"  Le  surnaturel  serait  le  surdivin,"1    on  the  other  side  we  hear  the  promising 
words,  "  If  one  first  knows  what  Reason  is,  then  all  discord  with  Revelation 
will  cease  "  (Hamann).     Without  entering  into  a  criticism  of  other  defi- 
nitions, we  therefore  simply  declare  that  we  reject  as  Naturalistic  the  idea 
according    to  which  everything  which  occurs  must  be  explained  as    the 
necessary  consequence  of  finite  causes,  without  leaving  room  anywhere  for 
the  working  of  a  higher  Factor ;  and,  in  opposition  to  this,  we  assert  of 
Revelation  that  it  is  not  explicable  by  mankind  itself,  but  must  be  considered 
as  the  fruit  of  the  free  act  of  a  God,  who,  in  the  history  of  mankind,  speaks 
and  acts  in  an  extraordinary  way.     Supranatural  is  thus  not  merely  supra- 
sensnous,  but  supra-creatura/  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word.    Revelation  is 
thus  not  from  man,  but  comes  from  above  to  man,  and  this,  too,  in  contact 
with  him,  and  specially  with  his  reason.     By  this  last  word  we  don't  mean 
that  so-called  sound  intellect,  nor  even  the  acute  judgment,  but  that  faculty 
of  the  human  spirit  by  which  it  raises  itself  to  the  invisible,  to  the  infinite, 
to  the  world  of  ideas.     If  men  speak  sometimes  of  reason  in  the  objective 
sense,  to  point  out  that  amount  of  ideas  which  man  obtains  by  his  own 
thoughts  on  Divine  matters,  we  speak  of  it  in  the  subjective  sense  of  the 
word,  to  denote  the  organ  by  which  man  rises  to  the  conception  of  the 
Absolute  and  the  Infinite.     A  personal  God  cannot  be  conceived  as  aught 
else  but  the  highest,  the  eternal  Reason  which  is  revealed  and  reflected  in 
the  human  capacity  of  reason,  as  the  sun  in  a  single  drop  of  water.     But 
Divine  and  human  reason,  however  allied,  are  notwithstanding  separated 
by  an  infinite  distance ;  and  where  thus  a  thought  of  salvation  of  the  first 
is  made  known  to  the  second,  the  question  of  itself  occurs,  what  on  this 
ground  are  the  rights,  and  what  the  duties  for  this  last  ? 

2.  In  the  investigation  into  the  relation  between  Reason  and  Revelation, 
we  may  easily  a  priori  determine  on  one  side  that  a  really  Divine  revelation 
cannot  possibly  conflict  with  reason,  but  also,  on  the  other  hand,  that  even 
as  a  revelation  of  salvation  to  the  sinner,  it  can  and  must  contain  much 
which  reason  could  not  of  itself  discover,  and  even  after  it  has  been  revealed 
only  penetrates  to  a  certain  extent.     The  Revelation  of  Salvation  may  thus 

1  The  supranatural  would  be  the  supradivine. 


ITS   RELATION    TO   REASON.  l6l 

be  supranatural,  in  many  points  inscrutable,  even  in  conflict  with  the  fleshly 
wisdom  of  the  sinner's  darkened  intellect,  without  on  that  account  being 
unreasonable.  It  lies,  however,  in  the  nature  of  the  case  that  the  question 
as  to  the  relation  of  Revelation  to  Reason — in  other  words,  that  as  to  the  con- 
nection between  belief  and  knowledge — is  at  all  times  differently  answered. 
Here,  too,  must  we  learn  to  know  the  wrong  patns  before  we  can  point  out 
the  right  track. 

3.  There  have  never  been  wanting  some  who  deny  reason  all  right  of 
vote  in  this  domain,  and  cry  out  to  it,  "  Mulier  taceat  in  Ecclesia."     As 
well  on  the  side  of  belief  as  of  unbelief  has  the  irrevocable  separation  of 
belief  and  philosophy  been  in  this  case  proclaimed  as  the  highest  wisdom. 
"Quid  Athenis  cum  Hierosolymis,  quid  Academise  et  Ecclesise,'"2  Tertullian 
has  already  cried  out  in  a  tone  of  scorn,  "  Nostra  institutio  de  porticu 
Salomonis  est ;  nobis  curiositate  non  opus  est  post  Jesum  Christum,  nee 
inquisitione  post  Evangeiium."    The  conclusion  was  the  famous  "  credibile, 
quia   ineptum ;    certum,   quia   impossibile    est."      Even    Luther    may   in 
some  degree   serve   as   a   type   of  this    tendency,   at  least  in  the  places 
where  he  calls  reason  in  the  domain  of  spirit  "eine  Bestie,"   who  must 
be  strangled — although  on  the  other  hand  we  meet  with  sundry  eulogies 
from    his   lips  on  the   excellence   of  reason.      Not  a  few   of  the   strict 
orthodox  fully  agree  with  this  polemic  against  reason.     Not  to  mention 
other  names,  at  the  Tercentenary  of  the  Reformation  simihr  expressions 
were   discoverable  in  some  of  the  theses  of  Harms.      On  the  opposite 
side  also  this  same  Radicalism  was  cherished ;  among  others  by  Spinoza, 
when    he  asserted    that    Christian   faith    did   not    ask   for    "true,"    but 
for  "pious  dogmas  ;"  by  Bayle,  when  he  wrote,  "A  choice  must  of  neces- 
sity be  made  between  philosophy  and  the  Gospel ; "  by  Hume,  Reimarus, 
and,  not  to  mention  any  others,  by  Strauss,  when  he  concluded  the  Intro- 
duction to  his  Glaubenslehre  (1840,  i.,  S.  356) :  "Let  thus  the  believer  let 
the   scientific  man  go  his  way,  and  the  man  of  science  the  believer  his. 
We  will  leave  them  their  belief,  if  they  will  leave  us  our  philosophy.    And  if 
the  over-pious  people  should  succeed  in  excluding  us  from  their  Church, 
we  should  consider  this  as  a  favour.     Enough  has  been  done  with  false 
attempts  at  mediation,  only  separation  can  lead  us  further."     We  need 
hardly  call  to  mind  how  much  the  leaders  of  the  modem  Naturalism  are 
penetrated  by  this  spirit.     Theological  strategics,  however,  require  that  we 
should  not  be  at  all  guided  by  hints  or  wishes  from  the  enemy's  side,  and 
we  shall  do  well  to  take  good  heed  to  this  before  we  determine  upon  the 
proposed  separation. 

4.  It  is  indeed  impossible,  as  will  soon  appear  on  a  nearer  investigation, 
that  Reason  can  say  to  Belief,  or  Belief  to  Reason,  "  I  have  no  need  of 
thee."     Such  a  separation  is  in  the  highest  degree  un psychological ;  as  it 
partly  presupposes,  partly  establishes,  an  inner  dualism,  which  may  be  con- 
ceivable as  a  transition,  but  cannot  possibly  continue  as  the  normal  con- 
dition.    That  separation  is  alike  irreligious  and  unchristian  ;  God  cannot 
be  glorified  by  the  rejection  of  one  of  His  two  most  glorious  gifts,  Reason 
and  Faith;  and  the  Lord  nowhere  disavowed  in  His  contemporaries  either 

2  De  prcescrip.  haeret.  7.     De  carne  Chr.  5. 

M 


1 62  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

the  right  of  reason  or  the  voice  of  natural  feeling.  He  constantly  appealed 
to  both,  and  His  apostles  followed  His  example.8  Lastly,  this  separation 
of  belief  and  knowledge  is  unprotestant  and  specially  unreformed.  The 
well-known  declaration  of  Luther  at  Worms,  that  he  would  not  yield  his 
consent  unless  he  were  convinced  by  Holy  Scripture  or  by  "  clear  reason- 
ing," is  in  this  respect  symbolical,  and  it  is  universally  known  how  little 
hostile  the  supporters  of  a  healthy  orthodoxy  during  the  best  period  of  our 
Church  have  shown  themselves  to  philosophy.  Their  motto  was  rather 
"  True  philosophy,  though  it  may  differ  greatly  from  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church,  yet  neither  fights  with  it,  nor  is  a  lie,  as  are  the  false  doctrines  of 
other  sects,  but  is  truth,  even  a  spark  of  God's  own  wisdom  kindled  in  the 
creation  in  the  human  mind  "  (Ursinus,  Opp.,  Tom.  i,  p.  48). 

5.  As  little  tenable,  however,  is  their  standpoint  who  overlook  the  bor- 
der-line between  belief  and  knowledge,  confound  one  with  the  other,  and 
finally  by  this  way  come  to  declare  the  supremacy  of  reason  in  the  domain 
of  religion.  A  type  of  this  tendency  was  found  in  the  ancient  Church  in 
Gnosticism,  and  in  some  degree  in  the  school  of  Alexandria ;  in  the  middle 
a.es,  in  J.  Scotus  Erigena,  and  Abelard  ;  in  later  times,  in  Socinianism, 
Rationalism,  and  many  tendencies  of  speculative  philosophy.  This  stand- 
point, notwithstanding  the  warmth  with  which  it  is  often  defended,  is  utterly, 
arbitrary.  Even  though  reason  can  raise  itself  to  the  idea  of  the  infinite 
world,  its  right  is  not  thereby  established  to  speak  the  final  word  concerning 
t'iings,  of  which  it  would  know  nothing  at  all  if  they  had  not  been  brought 
by  special  Revelation  within  the  reach  of  its  vision.  The  Reason  which 
claims  supremacy  in  the  domain  of  revelation  has  never  yet  proved  its 
competency  for  this  claim.  "Reason  is  indeed  a  precious  thing,  and, 
according  to  its  right  notion,  faultless,  if  it  were  but  already  one's  own 
possession.  But  here,  alas,  is  the  failing.  To  be  reasonable  is  as  yet 
for  man  an  unattained  aim  :  like  real  liberty,  Man  has  Reason,  i.e.,  he 
can  think,  and  therefore  has  he  reason  only  in  that  degree  in  which  he  can 
think  ;  and  who  can  do  that  but  in  a  relative  degree?"  (Rothe).  With  only  one 
word  do  we  recall  here  the  palpable  fact,  that  even  this  faculty  of  thought 
of  ours  is  moreover  under  the  influence  of  sin,  and  rather  observe  here 
that  the  tendency  we  speak  of  can  certainly  never  be  more  unsuccessful 
than  when  it  attempts  to  maintain  its  right  by  an  appeal  to  Holy  Scripture. 
The  reasonable  service  (Xe^ix:?/  Xarpda,  Rom.  xii.  i)  is  a  spiritual  worship, 
in  contrast  with  the  ceremonies  of  the  law.  Acts  xxvi.  25  only  proves  that 
St.  Paul  spoke  in  a  most  reasonable  manner,  a  fact  which  no  one  will 
deny,  i  Thess.  v.  21  was  written  to  Christians,  who  had  to  test  every- 
thing, not  by  their  reason,  but  by  the  word  and  Spirit  of  the  Lord  ;  and 
while  criticism  on  everything  is  permitted  to  the  spiritual  man,4  it  is  not 
therefore  allowed  to  every  one's  natural  reasoning  faculty.  Least  of  all  is 
the  supremacy  of  this  last  confirmed  by  an  appeal  to  the  spirit  of  Protest- 
antism, which  indeed  must  be  called  something  more  than  a  purely 

8  See  Matt.  xxi.  24;  I  Cor.  x.  15;  and  many  other  places.  While  in  expressions  like 
Matt.  xi.  25,  26 ;  Col.  ii.  8  ;  2  Cor.  x.  4,  5,  only  that  wisdom  is  condemned  which 
assumes  a  hostile  attitude  towards  the  Gospel. 

4  I  John  iv.  I  ;  I  Cor.  ii.  15. 


ITS   RELATION   TO   REASON.  163 

negative  principle.  The  proposition  that  he  is  most  truly  Protestant  who 
most  decidedly  rejects  what  goes  beyond  his  finite  view,  will  certainly  least 
of  all  find  contradiction — at  Rome. 

6.  Contrasted  with  both  these  one-sided  views,  we  find  our  safety  in  a 
third  tendency,  which  properly  distinguishes  knowledge  and   faith,6   but 
does  not  on  that  account  contrast  them  and  rather  attempts  to  reconcile  the 
two.     "  Two  extremes  must  be  avoided  ;  the  exclusion  of  reason  and  the 
admission  of  nothing  but  reason"  (Pascal).     The  first  is  as  absurd  as  if  we 
were  first  to  deprive  of  sight  the  astronomer  who  is  to  observe  the  heavens 
through  his  telescope.     But  just  as  foolishly  as  that  astronomer  would  act  if 
he  d  priori  determined  what  phenomena  his  glass  should  discover  in  this 
planet  or  that,  so  absurd  would  it  be  to  reject  arbitrarily  as  absurd  that 
which  makes   itself  known  as   the  revelation  of   a  higher  world.     The 
Christian  philosopher  is  through  reason  itself  in  a  certain  sense  dead  to 
reason,6  and  says  with  A.  Monod,  "  I  do  not  understand,  but  this  I  under- 
stand, that  I  cannot  understand."    The  question  would  be  much  simplified  if 
men  did  not  ask  so  much  as  to  the  relation  of  Reason  and  Revelation  in 
general,  but  as  to  the  relation  of  the  reason  of  the  sensuous,  sinful  man  to 
this,  i.e.,  the  Revelation  of  Salvation  in  its  historical  form.     How  can  the 
reason  ever  determine  what  thoughts  of  salvation  could  rise  in  the  mind  of 
God,  and  what  deeds  were  necessary  to  their  realization  ?     Facts  belong  to 
the  domain  of  history,  not  to  that  of  reasoning ;  and  that  which  is  above 
relative  reason  is  not  therefore  yet  at  variance  with  absolute  reason.     The 
question  with  regard  to  any  fact  is  not,  Is  it  reasonable,  but  first  of  all,  Is  it 
sufficiently  established  ?    And  if,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Scripture 
and  experience,  the  entire  man  must  be  redeemed,  then  his  faculty  of 
thought  too  must  be  enlightened  and  released  before  he  can  recognise  and 
judge  the  full  truth. 

7.  If  we  ask  what  rights  and  duties  must  be  conceded  to  Reason  in  its 
relation  to  the  Revelation  of  Salvation,  the  answer  is  already  determined 
in  principle  by  what  has   been  said.      Reason    may  and    must    submit 
the  grounds  for  the  reality  of  this  revelation  to  a  close  and  accurate  test ; 
compare  its  contents  with  that  which  general  revelation  proclaims,  and 
reject  what  appears  to  be  in  irreconcilable  conflict  therewith ;  it  must 
seek  to  distinguish  the  unchangeable  essence  of  this  revelation  from  the 
temporary  form  in  which  it  is  now  given,  and  try  to  penetrate  more  deeply 
into  its  internal  coherence,  its  value,  a/id  Divine  dignity ;  and  attempt  by 
its  light  to  raise  itself  to  the  height  of  a  really  Christian  notion  of  the 
world — believing,  but  also  reasonable  in  the  very  highest  sense  of  the  word. 
In  some  degree — it  is  a  comparison  drawn  from  Liebnitz — in  some  degree 
Revelation,  as  contrasted  with  Reason,  lulfils  the  task  of  an  Extraordinary 
Royal  Commissioner  before  a  lawful  assembly,   to  which  he  first  of  all 
delivers  his  credentials ;  but  when  these  credentials  have  once  been  pro- 
perly examined  and  approved,  he  now  takes  the  place  of  President,  com- 
municating his  decrees  and  commands,  which  were  unknown  before,  and 
by  the  right  of  these  rules  all  further  deliberation  (§  xvi.  8). 

8.  With  this  notion  of  our  subject,  we  gain  now  the  right  way  to  give  a 

*  Compare  §  3.  *  Gal.  ii.  19. 

M  2 


164  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

satisfactory  answer  to  the  much-discussed  question,  whether,  and  in  how 
far,  we  must  then  believe  on  authority.  Lessing  has  already  truly  said,  "  A 
certain  bias  of  Reason  under  the  obedience  of  Faith  rests  upon  the  actual 
conception  of  Revelation  ;  or  rather,  Reason  yields  itself  captive  as  soon  as 
it  is  assured  of  the  reality  of  the  Revelation."  We  must  only  take  care  to 
mark  out  the  meaning,  the  grounds,  and  the  limits  of  this  claim.  We  acknow- 
ledge any  one's  authority  in  the  Christian  religious  domain  when  we  concede 
to  him  the  ri^htto  be  believed  on  his  word,  even  when  we  do  not  yet  understand, 
or  only  imperfectly,  the  word  itself.  In  the  absolute  sense  such  an  authority  can 
only  be  ascribed  to  God,  but  it  can  also  attain  to  very  high  proportions  in 
men,  of  whom  it  is  clearly  seen  that  they  speak  and  act  in  the  name  of 
God.  In  this  case  we  accept  their  testimony  already,  because  they  really 
are  that  which  they  say  they  are,  and  their  personality  commands  our 
respect  and  confidence.  Thus  belief  on  authority  always,  in  a  certain 
sense,  differs  from  conviction  obtained  by  means  of  an  independent  insight 
into  that  which  is  revealed ;  and  the  systematic  opposition  of  some  to 
such  belief,  even  when  put  forth  with  the  highest  pretensions  of 
science,  is,  in  fact,  nothing  but  superficiality  itself. 

As  in  every  other  domain,  so  most  of  all  in  the  suprasensuous,  is  a  certain 
degree  of  belief  on  authority  natural,  indispensable,  and  therefore  thoroughly 
legitimate.  Sever  its  main  artery,  then  neither  society,  nor  household  life,  nor 
mercantile  transactions  would  be  possible.  Where  it  concerns  a  revelation 
of  God's  designs  for  salvation,  of  which  we  only  obtain  our  knowledge  by 
the  way  of  well-established  testimony,  it  is  the  greatest  folly  to  say,  "He 
who  believes  on  authority  does  not  himself  believe ;  another  believes  in  his 
place."  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  Himself  demands  unconditional  belief  in 
His  words,  places  this  higher  than  belief  on  the  ground  of  a  sensible  sign ; 
and,  notwithstanding  all  which  in  it  seems  inconceivable,  has  condemned 
the  unbelieving  rejection  of  His  word  as  inexcusable  sin.7  It  was  indeed, 
in  the  nature  of  His  utterances,  specially  in  the  metaphysical  and  pro- 
phetical character  of  many  of  His  words,  that  these  must  either  be  rejected, 
or,  if  need  be,  accepted  only  on  His  dictum.  Nor  is  it  at  all  different  with 
many  assertions  of  the  Apostles,  to  which  they  demand  an  unconditional 
assent.8  We  could  only  speak  here  of  "  blind  faith,"  if  this  were  claimed 
without  reason;  but  not  where  it  is  demanded,  after  it  has  been  fully 
shown  why  and  for  whom  the  demand  is  made.  So  little  irrational  is  such 
a  belief,  that,  on  the  contrary,  we  can  hardly  justify  the  opposition  to  it. 
Experience  teaches,  indeed,  that  man  may  yield  to  oifferent  authorities 
alternately,  but  never  can  raise  himself  above  all  authority.  Many  a  one, 
who  seemed  to  do  this,  has  never  rested  until  he  has  become  an  authority 
for  himself  or  for  others.  Belief  on  authority  is  certainly  not  the  highest, 
much  less  is  it  the  only  belief;  he  who  has  begun  with  it  cannot  rest 
until  he  has  raised  himself  as  much  as  is  possible  to  an  independent 
insight  into  the  contents  and  grounds  of  his  belief,  and  sanctified  reflection 
cannot  remain  one  step  below  the  highest  to  which  Christian  Reason  is 
able  to  rise  by  the  light  of  Revelation.  Dulness  of  spirit  in  this  respect, 

7  Matt.  v.  22  ;  vii.  28,  29  ;  John  viii.  51  ;  xii.  48. 

8  E.g.,  I  Thess.  iv.  15;  i  Cor.  xv.  51,  52 ;  Rom.  xi.  25,  26. 


ITS   RELATION   TO   REASON.  !<5ij 

under  the  cloak  of  humility,  is  no  sign  of  life,  but  a  sign  of  disease,  and 
the  credo  quia  absunium  cannot  in  any  case  be  the  last  words  of  our 
justification.  But  the  credo,  quanquam  absurdum  videtur,  in  this  domain 
has  still  in  some  cases  a  higher  right  than  the  intelligo  ut  credam, 
which  in  its  ultimate  ground  is  unchristian  and  therefore  also  untheolo- 
gical.  Where  no  further  independent  insight  is  possible,  there  Christian 
belief,  even  in  its  highest  development,  still  remains  always  a  belief  on 
authority.  In  many  cases,  to  the  question,  why  the  believer  holds  some- 
thing as  truth,  we  can  give  only  as  an  answer  the  aiW  t<pa.  of  the  Master, 
and  in  this  case  this  word  must  be  quite  sufficient  for  us.  This  remains, 
notwithstanding  various  continuing  difficulties,  "  the  end  of  all  contro- 
versy," because  it  is  (externally)  historically  proved,  and  is  (internally) 
confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  this  sense,  authority, 
but  authority  Divine  and  legitimated,  appears  at  once  the  last  ground  of 
belief,  and  we  thus  believe,  in  the  last  resort,  not  in  ourselves,  but  in  the 
living  God,  if  need  be,  ourselves  notwithstanding.  "  Ratio  auctoritatem 
non  deserit,  cum  consideratur  cui  sit  credendum  "  (Augustine).  A  perfect 
conciliation  of  belief  and  knowledge  is  not  conceivable  on  this  side  of  the 
grave,9  and,  going  on  from  belief  to  knowledge,  we  constantly  return  again 
to  childlike  belief,10  and  walk  in  that  belief,  but  by  the  light  of  Holy 
Scripture. 

Comp.  Dr.  S.  R.  J.  VAN  SCHEVICHAVEN  as  to  the  import  and  value  of  belief  on 
authority  (1864)  ;  H.  CREMER,  Vernunft,  Gewissen,  tmd  Offenbarung,  in  the  Neun 
Apologet.  Vortriige  (1869),  pp.  51 — 99;  TH.  CHRISTLIEB,  a.  a,  O.  (1870),  pp.  78 — 147; 
E.  DE  PRESSENSE,  L'Autorite  en  Matiere  Religieuse,  in  the  Rev.  Chr'etienne  of  1871. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

The  idea  of  the  Supranatural  further  elucidated. — The  limits  of  reason  in  this  domain 
recognised  and  denned. — Does  the  Revelation  of  Salvation  announce  absolutely  nothing 
which  conflicts  with  human  reason  ? — How  far  is  the  right  of  Reason  with  regard  to 
Revelation  recognised  by  our  Lord  and  His  first  witnesses?  —  Rationalism  not  rational. 
—  Cannot  the  Christian  belief  in  Revelation  do  entirely  without  the  principle  of 
authority? — Must  men  then,  throughout  their  whole  lives,  adhere  to  the  standpoint  of 
authority  ? — Does  there  exist  any  prospect  of  a  reconciliation  of  faith  and  knowledge?  and 
what  help  can  Dogmatics  give  in  order  to  hasten  the  fulfilment  of  that  prospect  ? 


9  I  Cor.  xiii.  9 — 12.  10  I  John  v.  13. 


CHAPTER  III. 

HOLY    SCRIPTURE. 


SECTION  XXXV.— ITS  ESSENTIAL  CONTENTS. 

THE  knowledge  of  the  Revelation  of  Salvation  is  drawn  from  Holy 
Scripture,  which  thus  must  be  well  distinguished  from  the  Reve- 
lation itself.  The  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testament  form  together  the  authentic,  and,  as  such,  indispensable, 
documentary  record  of  that  which  God  has  done,  is  doing,  and 
will  do,  to  establish  His  kingdom  upon  earth.  By  this  its  peculiar 
character  is  determined,  on  the  one  hand,  the  unity  of  the  Bible, 
and  on  the  other  the  very  diverse  value  of  its  different  parts. 

f.  The  connection  between  this  and  the  preceding  chapter  is  self-evident. 
For  the  Revelation,  of  which  we  have  thus  far  spoken,  is  made  known  to  us 
above  all  by  the  Bible ;  the  science  of  Apocalyptics  thus  prepares  the  way 
for  that  of  Bibliology.  Only  it  must  be  premised  that  we  are  here  speaking 
of  the  Bible  exclusively  in  relation  to  the  Saving  Revelation  ;  of  the  Word 
of  God  therein  contained,  regarded  as  a  means  of  grace,  we  shall  speak 
under  the  head  of  Ecclesiology.  Moreover  the  importance  of  the  subject 
now  to  be  treated  of  will  be  at  once  acknowledged.  The  question,  "  What 
think  ye  of  Holy  Scripture?  "  is,  in  a  certain  sense,  of  not  less  importance 
than  the  question,  "  What  think  ye  of  Christ  ? "  It  is  least  of  all  one 
of  minor  importance  for  the  Reformed  Theologian,  and  in  the  present  day. 
The  whole  bearing  of  our  Dogmatics  is  determined  by  the  relation  in 
which  it  stands  to  Scripture. 

2.  Only  general  hints,  conveyed  in  few  words,  can  here  be  given  in 
regard  to  Holy  Scripture.  The  name  Biblia — in  use  since  the  fifth  century, 
and  owing  its  origin,  as  it  would  seem,  to  Chrysostom — indicates  a  col- 
lection of  books  far  excellence.  The  distinction  between  the  Old  and  the 


ITS  ESSENTIAL  CONTENTS.  l6/ 

New  Testament  points  to  the  different  relationship  between  God  and  man, 
before  and  after  the  coming  of  Christ,  of  which  these  books  make  mention. 
The  original  word  whereby  this  relationship  is  expressed,  Atafl/?^  JV^3 
is  less  happily  rendered  by  the  Latin  fathers  testamentum  (in  which  sense 
it  is,  however,  used  in  Heb.  ix.  16),  and  must  here  be  taken  in  the  signifi- 
cation of  focdus.  As  early  as  i  Maccab.  i.  57,  mention  is  made  of  a  book 
of  the  Covenant,  as  indicating  the  Mosaic  Law;  and  in  2  Cor.  iii.  14,  the 
whole  of  the  first  and  greater  part  of  the  Bible  is  characterised  as  the  Old 
Covenant.  Now  in  these  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Covenant,  a  new  and 
better  covenant  was  spoken  of,  which  God  promised  to  make,1  and  which 
Jesus  declared  was  confirmed  in  His  shed  blood.8  Thus  it  was  natural  to 
confer  this  name  of  "  Books  of  the  New  Covenant "  upon  the  earliest  records 
of  the  New  Dispensation.  The  oldest  division  of  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  Testament  is  found  in  Luke  xxiv.  44,  where  the  Psalms  are  mentioned 
as  the  beginning  of  the  Hagiographa ;  while  we  very  early  see  the  Scriptures 
of  the  New  Testament  divided  into  the  Gospel  and  the  Apostles.  Further 
particulars,  in  regard  to  the  one  and  the  other,  in  any  general  Introduction 
to  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament. 

3.  If  the  extent  of  the  Bible  can  be  thus  easily  reviewed,  the  question 
"  What  is  the  Bible  ?  "  is  less  speedily  answered.     From  the  Bible  itself,  at 
least,  the  answer  cannot  possibly  be  derived.     We  cannot  possibly  apply 
texts  like  Ps.  xix.  7 — n  ;  cxix.  105;  John  xvii.   \^b ;  2  Pet.  i.  19,  with- 
out nearer  limitation,  to  the  Bible  en  bloc;  and  it  shows  pretty  much  a  want 
of  reflection  to  explain  of  the  Bible  as  a  whole  the  concluding  words  of  the 
book  of  Revelation,  xxii.    18,   19,  which   were  never  written  in   relation 
thereto.     Just  as  little  satisfactory  is  the  indefinite  statement :  the  Bible  is 
Go.l's  Word.     The  Bible  itself,  at  least,  never  takes  this  appellation ;  for 
surely  Rom.  iii.  2b  cannot  imply  that  Bibles  were  committed  to  the  Jews. 
From  the  very  first  we  must  distinguish  between  the  Bible  and  the  II  or 
of  God :  the  Word  of  God  is  literally  that  which  God  utters  and  reveals 
concerning  Himself,  and  that  Word  is  found  in  the  Bible. 

4.  The  distinction  already  made  before  ( §  xxviii.  i )  between  the  Bible  and 
revelation  remains  thus,  here  also,  imperatively  necessary.     Yea,  even  at 
the  first  glance  it  is  clear  that  the  Bible  contains  not  a  little  which  cannot 
possibly,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word,   be  termed  Revelation.     For 
instance,  so  many  genealogical  registers,  geographical  or  statistical  data, 
etc.      Or  even  if  it  were  thought  that  these  also  are  to  be  regarded  as  a 
fruit   of  inspiration — about   which   we   shall   speak   hereafter — even  then 
Inspiration  and  Revelation  are  by  no  means  the  same  thing.    The  confusion 
of  Bible  and  Revelation  rests  upon  a  want  of  distinguishing  between  the 
continens  and  the   contentum,    the  container   and   the   contained,    and    is 
possible  only  as  a  result  of  an  exceedingly  imperfect  conception  of  the 
nature  of  the  Theopneustia.     Already,  in  the  Standards  of  our  Church,  the 
ideas  of  Holy  Scripture  and  Word  or  Revelation  of  God  are  more  or  less 
distinguished  the  one  from  the  other  ;8  and  it  was  therefore  wholly  in  the 

'  Jer.  xxxi.  31 — 34. 

2  Matt.  xxvi.  28. 

*  Netherlands  Confession,  Artt.  iii.,  vii.,  xxix. 


1 68  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

spirit  of  our  Confession  of  Faith  that  it  was  asserted  :  "  Not  all  that  is  found 
in  the  Bible  is  Divine  Revelation ;  but  all  Divine  Revelation  which  is  neces- 
sary for  our  salvation  is  found  in  the  Bible.  It  would  not,  therefore, 
necessarily  follow  that  if  we  should  have  to  be  without  some  single  portion 
of  the  Bible,  we  should  have  on  that  account  lost  some  part  of  God's 
Word."4  Holy  Scripture  is  not  the  Revelation  itself,  but  the  source  of  our 
knowledge  of  it, — the  record,  the  memorial,  the  bearer  thereof. 

5.  Thus  appears  clear — along  with  the   manifest  difference — also   the 
inseparable  connection  between  Revelation  and  Holy  Scripture.     We  have 
already  seen  that  the  Revelation  of  Salvation  is  a  fact,  or  rather  that  it 
takes  place  in  a  series  of  facts  which  make  us  acquainted  with  the  Divine 
plan  of  salvation,  and  of  words  in  which  these  facts  are  explained.     But 
how  are  we  to  come  to  the  precise  knowledge,  as  well  of  these  facts  as  of 
the  sense  in  which  they  are  to  be  apprehended  ?     Here  Holy  Scripture 
comes  to  our  help  :  this  is  the  documentary  record  of  what  God  has  done, 
is  doing,  and  will  do  to  establish   His  kingdom  on  earth.       It  publicly 
proclaims  that  kingdom  ;  makes  us  acquainted  with  its  existence,  its  history, 
its  laws,  and  its  promises  of  salvation.     It  is  true  that  the  accuracy  of  this 
definition,  too,  cannot  be  proved  by  an  appeal  to  particular  texts ;  for  the 
Bible  was  gradually  formed,  and  no  single  book  contains  a  passage  which 
teaches  us  how  the  whole — which  was  not  yet  in  existence  then — is  to  be 
regarded.     But  the  justice  of  this  description  appears  from  the  impression 
which  the  Bible  in  its  totality  makes  upon  every  attentive  mind.     For  the 
idea  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  the  golden  thread  which  runs  through  all  : 
and  of  this  kingdom  the  Bible  is  the  document  (documentum\  because  it 
not  only  bears  witness  to  the  founding  thereof,  but  also  explains  it,  and 
itself  belongs  to  it — just  as  a  gift  of  the  Crown  is  only  then  acknowledged 
as  an  actual  right  when  an  official  warrant  thereof,  a  formal  deed  of  gift,  has 
been  prepared.     "  The  Word  of  God  is  the  testimony  of  His  kingdom,  in 
the  form  of  a  history  and  doctrine  explained  and  continued  by  personal 
organs."  (Nitzsch.) 

6.  With  full  confidence  we  speak  of  this  document  as  authentic  and 
indispensable.     Authentic  not  yet,  as  having  regard  to  every  single  part  of 
the  Bible — of  which  the  origin  and  genuineness  must  be  proved  as  a  result 
of  historic-critical  investigation — but  in  this  sense,  that  without  the  Bible  in 
its  totality  we  should  possess  either  no  knowledge  of  the  revelation,  or  at 
least  no  sufficient  knowledge  thereof ;  in  other  words,  that  all  our  knowledge 
on  this  point  must  be  derived  from  Holy  Scripture  as  the  most  original 
source.  And  indispensable,  because,  without  such  Scripture  record,  Revelation 
could  not  possibly  have  been  preserved  and  handed  down  for  all  time  in 
its  purity.     If  He  who  revealed  Himself  desired  this  as  a  permanent  con- 
dition, He  must,  at  the  same  time,  will  that  the  history  and  import  of  His 
revelation  should  be  recorded  in  durable  characters.     Hence  we  find  He 
Himself  constantly  gives  the  command  to  write,  where  something  of  great 
importance   for   posterity   is   communicated.5      Man   thinks,   speaks,    and 

4  L.  EGELING,  Weg  der  Zaligh.,  ii.  p.  577;  compare  J.  I.  DOEDES,  Leer  der  Zaligh., 
p.  5,  sqq. 

*  Compare  Exod.  xxxiv.  I  ;  Deut.  xxxi.  19  ;  i  Sam.  x.  25  ;  Isa.  viii.  I  ;  Jer.  xxxvi.  2  ; 
Rev.  i.  19. 


ITS  ESSENTIAL  CONTENTS.  169 

preserves  the  word  of  his  lips  in  writing.  It  is  not  otherwise  with  God; 
He  has  thoughts  of  redemption,  utters  them,  and  now  also  provides  for 
their  being  preserved  in  writing.  The  before- mentioned  places  were 
formerly  appealed  to,  without  reason,  to  prove  that  God  had  commanded 
the  writing  of  the  whole  Bible  :  th£  deduction  from  some  parts  in  relation 
to  the  whole  is  not  unconditionally  allowed.  Yet  in  general  it  may  be 
asserted  that  He  who  willed  the  end  must  also  have  willed  the  means 
thereto.  But  while  the  revelation  itself,  indeed,  is  possible  without  the 
vehicle  of  Scripture,  its  communication  and  preservation  in  a  trustworthy 
form  through  a  prolonged  course  of  time  is  imposs'ble.  "  Revelation  is  not 
designed  as  a  meteor  to  flash  for  a  moment  through  the  world,  but  to  be 
set  in  the  firmament  for  humanity  as  a  bright  sun  which  gradually  brings 
in,  over  the  whole  extent  of  our  earth,  the  clear,  full  day.  This  it  can 
do  only  when  the  account  thereof  is  fixed  by  writing,  and  that  while 
it  is  yet  in  the  process  of  formation — i.e.,  attested  by  means  of  docu- 
ments— consequently  only  when  it  is  authenticated  by  documentary  evi- 
dence "  (Rothe). 

7.  What  has  been  said  confirms  the  inner  Unity  of  the  Bible.  It  cannot 
be  overlooked  that  the  first  impression  which  it  makss  is  that  of  a  very 
great  diversity  of  writers,  age,  language,  etc.  But  in  the  midst  of  all  this, 
the  higher  harmony  of  its  central  thought  and  tendency,  which  is  contained 
in  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  cannot  be  denied.  The  Bible  is  like  a 
body  consisting  of  many  members,  some  more  honourable,  others  less  so, 
but  animated  by  one  breath  of  life.  It  is  as  a  Gothic  temple,  in  which  even 
the  apparent  caprices  of  architecture  and  ornamentation  constitute,  in  connec- 
tion with  the  whole,  one  beauty  the  more,  and  the  form  of  the  cross  is  every- 
where to  be  traced ;  but  at  the  same  time  the  value  of  the  different  parts  is 
determined  by  the  relation  of  each  one  to  the  central  thought  of  the  whole. 
For  no  sound  Christian  consciousness  has  each  part  of  the  Scripture  wholly 
the  same  value.  In  regard  also  to  the  light  here  shed,  the  saying  of  the 
Apostle  (i  Cor.  xv.  41)  may  be  applied.  What  we  have  to  do  in  this  case 
is  simply  to  preserve  our  estimate  of  the  value  of  Scripture  free  from  caprice 
and  one-sidedness  ;  and  this  will  be  done  where  the  following  rule  is 
observed  :  A  part  of  Scripture  has  so  much  the  higher  value  in  proportion 
as  it  is  of  greater  importance  for  our  knowledge  of  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

Compare,  on  this  chapter  in  general,  the  Articles,  Bible,  Canon,  etc.,  in  the  Bijb. 
Woordenb.  (Dictionary  of  the  Bible)  and  in  Herzog's  R.  E.  ;  the  principal  Introductions 
to  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  ;  the  general  Introduction  to  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  prefixed  by  LANGE,  in  his  Bibel-  Werk,  to  his  Commentary  on  Matthew,  etc. 
Touching  this  section,  D.  J.  KOEPPEN,  Die  Bibd,  ein  Wcrk  der  Gottlichen  Weisheit  (trans- 
lated into  Dutch,  1794)  ;  J.  H.  SCHOLTEN,  Hewormde  Kerk,  i.,  p.  97,  seq. ;  J.  J.  VAN 
TOORENENBERGEN,  £ijiiragen,  etc.,  p.  9,  seq. ;  H.  EWALD,  Die  Lehrevom  Worti  Gottes 
(1871). 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Connexion  with  the  preceding  chapter. — Scripture  and  the  Christ. — Explanation  of  the 
Scripture  places  referred  to. — In  what  sense  and  on  what  grounds  may  we  say  that  Holy 
Scripture  was  willed  by  God  Himself? — The  necessity  for  preserving  the  Revelation  in 
writing,  illustrated  from  the  nature  of  the  ( ase  and  from  the  history  of  Religion. — Whence 
is  it  that  the  unity  of  the  Bible  has  been  alternately  over-estimated  and  ignored  ? 


CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 


SECTION   XXXVI. — ITS   ORIGIN. 

Just  as  the  essential  contents  of  Holy  Scripture  are  emphatically 
Divine,  so  does  the  history  of  the  formation  of  the  Sacred 
Scriptures  give  us  the  right  to  speak — after  the  Divine — of  a 
human  side  of  the  Bible,  which  has  never  been  ignored  without 
serious  loss  to  the  cause  of  truth.  The  Holy  Scriptures  were 
written  by  men,  for  men,  and  in  a  truly  human  manner ;  and  only 
after  a  long  time  were  they  united  into  a  compact  whole.  Science 
cannot  possibly  allow  the  right  and  duty  of  free  criticism  of  the 
Canon  of 'the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  in  the 
domain  of  Protestant  Christian  Theology  to  be  disputed  ;  but 
faith  recognises,  at  the  same  time,  in  the  whole  history  of  the 
formation  and  preservation  of  the  sacred  collection,  the  traces  of 
God's  special  care  for  the  highest  interests  of  humanity. 

1.  The  question  as  to  the  Origin  of   the  Bible  is  almost  the  first  which 
presents  itself  in  the  domain  of  Bibliology,  and  is  of  decisive  importance  for 
its  further  treatment.     If  the  Scripture  is  purely  a  Divine  book,  all  criticism 
is  out  of  place  in  regard  to  it ;  if  it  is  merely  human,  it  must  be  regarded, 
and  judged   of,  not  differently  from   any   other  writing.       In    order   to 
find  the  true  answer,  it  is  necessary  that  we  look  at  the  Bible  itself  in  an 
unprejudiced  manner,  and  see  in  what  light  it  presents  itself.     If  we  do 
this,  it  is  plain  that  it  displays  as  well  a  Divine,  as  a  human,  side.     Divine, 
as  we  saw,  (Chap.  II.,)  as  to  its  essential  contents — the  Saving  Revelation  ; 
human  as  to  the  form   in  which   this  treasure  is  contained.     A  striking 
parallel  may  be  drawn  in  this  respect  between  Holy  Scripture  and  Him  of 
whom  it  testifies.     As  we  discover  in  \h&  person  of  the  Lord  a  Divine  and  a 
human  side,  united  in  the  one  life  of  a  God-man;  so  in  the  sacred  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  Divine  Revelation,  Law,  Promise,  on  the 
one  side,  human  apprehension,  conception,   representation,  on  the  other, 
co-operate  to  present  a  Divine-human  whole  of  inestimable  value.   At  every 
step  the  impartial  reader  must  exclaim,  '•'•How  Divine"  and  again,  "How 
human  /" 

2.  No  wonder  that  the  question,  What  is  properly  speaking  the  origin  of 
the  Bible?  has  been  so  differently  answered.      Bibliology  also  has  at  all 
times  had  its  Docetae  on  the  one  hand,  its  Socinians  on  the  other.     Alter- 
nately was  the  Divine  here  exalted  at  the  cost  of  the  human,  or  the  converse. 
The  first  was  especially  the  case  in  the  seventeenth  century,  under  the  influ- 
ence of  Scholasticism.     After  the  Reformation  had  restored  the  Scriptures  to 
th?ir  former  place  of  honour,  they  very  soon  came  to  be  regarded  in  their 
totality  as  a  sort  of  Nomo-cancn,  and  were  reverenced  in  an  extravagant 


ITS  ORIGIN.  I/I 

manner.  Men  regarded  the  Scriptures  as,  so  to  speak,  a  book  suddenly  fallen 
from  heaven,  of  which  God  was  the  Anctor primarius,  while  for  the  rest  it  was 
a  matter  of  subordinate  importance  what  persons  served  Him  as  Auctores 
secundarii.  "  Solus  Deus,  si  accurate  loqui  velimus,  S.  S.  auctor  dicendus  cst. 
Prophets  autem  et  Apostoli  auctor es  did  non  possunt,  nisi  per  Kardxpria-iv,  utpote 
quipotius  Dei  calami  tssent "  (Quenstadt,  t  1688).  If  they  were  in  any  degree 
active,  they  were  so,  it  was  thought,  in  a  purely  mechanical  way,  and  4t  was 
after  all  a  matter  of  indifference  whether  or  not  they  themselves  understood 
the  things  of  which  they  spoke.  Not  indeed  that  they  might  understand, 
but  that  they  might  record,  were  these  things  communicated  to  them  from 
above,  and  their  only  task  was,  with  the  greatest  accuracy  possible,  to  set 
down  what  they  heard.  According  to  this  view,  everything  in  the  Bible 
was  inspired,  i.e.,  dictated ;  not  merely  the  facts,  but  the  words  too  ; 
not  merely  the  consonants,  but  even  the  vowels;  not  merely  the  reli- 
gious and  moral  contents  of  the  Scripture,  but  even  its  geography  and 
history.  On  this  account,  even  the  language  and  style  of  the  Bible 
must  be  wholly  faultless ;  for  every  blemish  therein  observed  would  detract 
from  the  honour  of  the  heavenly  writer.  The  language,  therefore,  of  the 
New  Testament  must  not  be  judged  of  according  to  the  ordinary  laws  of 
grammar ;  but,  if  need  be,  the  latter  must  be  modified  with  an  eye  to  the 
former.  Even  the  diversity  of  style  and  language  was  explained  by  the 
fact,  that  the  invisible  Author  graciously  modified  His  communication 
according  to  the  individuality  of  His  different  organs.  It  was  denied 
in  so  many  words,  (see,  e.g.,  Voetius,  in  his  treatise,  "  Qiiousque  se  exten- 
dat  S.S.  auctoritas")  that  any  examination  or  reflection  was  necessary 
on  the  part  of  the  inspired  writer  in  regard  to  that  which  was  written, 
since  it  was  given  him  immediately,  and  in  an  extraordinary  manner.  The 
historical  and  human  side  of  Holy  Scripture,  in  a  word,  receded  not  only 
into  the  background,  but  was  even  as  little  as  possible  touched  upon. 
Nay,  "  Qucestio  an  SS.  SS.  Deisint  Verbum,  ho  mini  Christiana  indigna  est" 
(Wolleb). 

3.  That  this  view  is,  as  a  matter  of  abstract  logic,  unexceptionable,  yea, 
admirably  conclusive,  can  hardly  be  denied.  But  equally  certain  is  it  that  the 
Bible  itself  neither  teaches  nor  justifies  it ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  in  more  than 
one  way  manifests  its  inaccuracy.  To  what  absurdity  it  leads  is  seen,  for 
example,  by  a  glance  at  i  Cor.  i.  14 — 16,  where,  in  the  case  supposed,  the 
Holy  Ghost  dictated  to  the  Apostle,  first,  an  inaccuracy,  then  a  correction, 
and  finally  a  declaration  of  ignorance.  The  whole  of  this  mechanical  theory 
was  evidently  the  fruit  of  a  dogmatic  prepossession.  It  was  not  asked  what 
the  Bible  really  is,  but  what  it  ought  to  be,  in  order  to  maintain  its  character 
as  a  perfectly  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  life ;  and  each  satisfied  demand 
called  forth  another  and  yet  more  stringent  one.  It  is  now  pretty  generally 
acknowledged  that  this  position  may  be  regarded  as  untenable,  since  the 
last  attempt  at  its  partial  defence,  however  well  conceived  in  itself,  was 
altogether  unsuccessful.  (See  L.  Gaussen,  Theopneustie,  1842,  [also  in  an 
English  translation],  and  Le  Canon  des  S.  Ecritures,  2  vols.,  1860.)  It 
might,  perhaps,  even  appear  unnecessary  to  waste  a  single  word  upon  it, 
were  it  not  that  this  mechanical  theory  of  inspiration  still  lives  in  the  con- 
sciousness of  some,  at  least  in  Holland  and  England,  while  the  not  yet  for 


l~2  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

gotten  history  of  Edmond  Scherer1  and  others  shows  what  fatal  reaction 
may  be  called  forth  by  an  intellectual  exaggeration  of  the  Scripture  principle, 
combined  with  an  ignoring  of  the  human  side  of  the  Bible.  Even  in  our 
own  day  the  hint  given  by  Herder  to  the  young  theologian  is  by  no  means 
unnecessary  :  "  The  best  way  of  reading  the  Divine  book  is  as  a  human 
book."2 

4.  "  The  more  human  (in  the  best  sense  of  the  word)  the  meaning  you 
put  upon  the  Word  of  God,  so  much  the  more  nearly  do  you  attain  to  the 
object  of  its  Author"  (Herder).  Pity  only  that  so  often — especially  since  these 
words  were  written — men  have  rushed  into  the  very  opposite  extreme.     In 
an  increasing  degree  has  the  human  element  of  the  Bible  been  acknowledged, 
whilst  the  Divine  has  been  wholly,  or  in  part,  denied.     This  has  been  the 
case,  in  great  measure,  as  the  consequence  of  reaction,  on  the  part  of  Deism, 
Rationalism,    and   the   modern    Naturalism.      Regarded   from   this  point 
of  view,  the  Scripture  of  the  Old  Testament  is  nothing  but  the  remain- 
ing  literature  of  the  nation  of  Israel ;  and  that  of  the  New  Testament, 
of  the  Apostolic  age.     The  writers  in  both  cases  treat,  no  doubt,  of  things 
more  sacred  than  do  many,  but  in  no  other  respect  had  they  any  advantage 
over  any   other.      They  were,  and  remained,   short-sighted  men  like  all 
others;  and  every  one   has  the  right  to  know  better   than  they.     From 
the  undeniable  fact  that  the  mechanical  theory  of  inspiration  has,  as  such, 
broken  down,  there  is  drawn  from  this  standpoint  the  conclusion  that  there 
can  be  no   such  thing  as   inspiration  itself.     What  scorn,  in    every  way, 
lavished  upon  the  Bible,  our  age  especially  has  witnessed,  after  the  Bibliolatry 
of  an  earlier  period,  can  here  only  be  hinted  at  in  passing.     But  what  must 
be  brought  especially  into  the  foreground,  is  that  this  one-sidedness  is  also 
in  manifest  conflict,  not  only  with  express  utterances  of  Holy  Scripture, — 
e.g.,  2  Tim.  iii.  16  ;  2  Pet.  i.  21  ;  comp.  John  xvi.  13, — but  also,  and  above 
all,  with  the  impression  always  produced  by  the  Bible  upon  every  honest 
and  receptive  mind.     Even  from  the  most  violent  assailants  of  the  Bible, 
in  our  own  and  a  previous  age,  have  escaped,  as  it  were  in  spite  of  their 
authors,  eulogies  of  the  Book  of  books,  which  were  exaggeration  itself,  if  the 
Bible  is  and  claims  to  be  absolutely  nothing  more  than  a  mere  work  of  men. 
Taught  by  such  experiences,  and  above  all  taking  our  stand  upon  the  nature 
and  contents  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  themselves,  we  may  safely  lay  down 
the  proposition,  Every  conception  of  Holy  Scripture  is  one-sided,  and  on  that 
account   untrue,  in   which   its  human   side  recedes  into  the    background  as 
compared  with  the  Divine ;  or  the  converse.     Called  thus  to  have  regard  to 
both,  we  believe  we  shall  be  acting  most  in  accordance  with  the  nature  of  the 
case,  and  with  the  special  need  of  our  time,  if  w:e  begin  with  the  human 
side,  in  order  thence  to  proceed  to  the  higher. 

5.  Only  in  its  broad  outline  can  Christian   Dogmatics  point  out  the 
history  of  the  gradual  rise  of  the  sacred  collection.    As  concerns  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  they  themselves  contain  sundry  statements  as  to 
the  preservation  of  the  sacred  literary  deposit  of  which  the  Thora  formed 
the  basis,  and  which  was  gradually  augmented  by  important  additions. 

1  La  Critique  et  la  Foi,  deux  litres,  1850. 

2  Briejet  das  Stud.  d.  Theol.  betr.  s.  I. 


ITS  ORIGIN.  1/3 

(Compare  Deut.  xxxi.  24 — 26 ;  Josh.  xxiv.  26 ;  i  Sam.  x.  25,  and  other 
places.)  Although  the  history  of  the  sacred  books,  especially  up  to  the 
time  of  the  Babylonian  Captivity,  is  in  many  respects  lost  in  obscurity,  it 
is  nevertheless  certain  that,  even  before  this  time,  various  copies  of  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets  existed,  so  that,  at  the  time  of  the  restoration  of 
Israel,  the  work  of  gathering  again  the  sacred  treasure  could  be  attempted 
with  the  desired  result.  According  to  the  Jewish  tradition,  this  task  was 
accomplished  by  no  other  than  Ezra  and  the  so-called  Great  Synagogue  ; 
a  tradition  of  which  the  later  fabulous  embellishment  has  concealed  indeed, 
but  by  no  means  destroyed,  the  original  kernel  of  truth.  Certain  is  it, 
at  least,  that,  according  to  Josephus  (contra  Apionem,  i.  8),  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  from  the  time  of  Moses  to  that  of  Artaxerxes  I.,  during  whose 
reign  the  last  of  the  Prophets  died,  formed  a  collection  with  which  nothing 
written  after  this  time  could  bear  comparison  in  point  of  value ;  so  that 
later  books,  such  as  that  of  Jesus  Sirach,  notwithstanding  their  relative 
importance,  were  clearly  distinguished  therefrom.  That  book,  composed 
about  two  centuries  before  our  era,  mentions,  among  other  things,  the 
division  of  the  Old  Testament  into  Law,  Prophets,  and  other  books 
(Luke  xxiv.  44),  while  the  writer  of  the  prologue  makes  mention  of  its 
existence  in  the  Greek  version. 

As  concerns  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament,  even  at  an  early 
period  the  Apostolic  Epistles  were  communicated  by  one  assembly  to 
another  (Col.  iv.  16).  Thus  there  '  naturally  arose  greater  or  lesser 
collections  (2  Pet.  iii.  16),  and  their  number  would  be  augmented  in  pro- 
portion as  reverence  for  the  writings  left  by  the  Apostles  increased.  The 
appearance  of  spurious  writings  in  their  name  (2  Thess.  ii.  2,  iii.  17)  very 
soon  rendered  a  critical  sifting  necessary,  and  the  rise  of  a  copious 
Apocryphal  literature  could  not  but  lead  to  a  sharp  distinction  between 
this  and  the  genuine  Apostolic  literature.  In  the  middle  of  the  second 
century  we  hear  Justin  Martyr  several  times  speak  of  the  Memorials  of 
the  Apostles  (memorabilia,  d-irofj.vrjfj.ovfijfj.aTa)  in  a  manner  which  justifies  the 
supposition  that  by  this  word  he  designates  our  four  Gospels ;  and  we 
know  that  even  Marcion  recognised  a  collection  of  ten  Pauline  Epistles. 
The  ancient  Syriac  version  of  the  New  Testament  (Peshito),  belonging  to 
the  end  of  the  second  century,  contained,  in  addition  to  the  four  Gospels 
and  the  Acts,  thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul,  together  with  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  the  Epistle  of  James,  and  the  first  Epistles  of  Peter  and  John ; 
whilst  the  well-known  fragment  of  Muratori,  probably  of  a  date  between 
170  and  180,  mentions  much  the  same  writings,  together  with  the  Epistle 
of  Jude,  and  the  Apocalypse.  With  slight  exception,  we  find  all  the 
writings  of  the  New  Testament  acknowledged  as  authentic  by  Origen  in 
the  beginning  of  the  third  century ;  and  in  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  we 
hear  these  divided  by  Eusebius  (Hist.  JEccL,  iii.,  25)  into  o^oKoyov^eva  (the 
four  Gospels,  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul,  i  Peter, 
i  John,  and  (while  leaving  it  open  to  any  one  to  reject  it)  the  Apoca- 
lypse), avri\ey6fj.fva  or  v60a  (the  Epistles  of  James  and  Jude,  2nd  of  Peter, 
2nd  and  3rd  of  John),  and  TraireXcDs  i>60a,  or  droira  xa.1  Bvffo-f^rj  (forged  writings 
of  heretics).  It  is  remarkable  that  he  altogether  passes  over  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  in  silence.  The  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  as 


174  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

we  possess  it,  was,  on  the  ground  of  these  and  other  testimonies,  definitely 
fixed  by  the  Council  of  Laodicea  (360-364),  still  with  the  exception  of  the 
Apocalypse,  which  was  accepted  as  an  integral  part  of  it  by  the  Council 
of  Hippo  (393),  and  that  of  Carthage  (397). 

6.  When  we  give  to  this  collection  of  the  books  of  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testament  the  name  of  Canonical  writings,  we  mean  those  whose  contents 
are  acknowledged  by  the  Christian  Church  as  a  rule  of  faith  and  life. 
[Compare   the   Sixth  Article   of  the  Church  of  England].      Entirely  in 
conflict  with  ecclesiastical  usage  is  the  opinion  of  Semier  and  others — pretty 
generally  held  a  while  ago — that  the  word  KavAv  signifies  a  list,  so  that  by 
Canonical  books  are  to  be  understood  those  which,  in  contradistinction 
from  the  Apocrypha,  were  publicly  read.     Nothing  else  is  signified  by  it 
but  a  fixed  rule  (Gal.  vi.  16  ;  Phil.  iii.  16),  as  this  was  found  at  first  in 
genuine  tradition,  and  afterwards  in  the  Apostolic  writings.     Just  as  little 
does  history  justify  our  understanding  Canonical  writings  at  once  in  the 
definitive  sense  of  inspired  writings.     The  dogmatic  and  the  historic  use  of 
the  word  must — in  the  interest  of  perspicuity — be  clearly  distinguished, 
although  it  may  hereafter  become  apparent,  in  the  treatment  of  the  doctrine 
of  Inspiration,  to  what  extent  this  attribute  must  be  claimed  definitely  for 
the  Canonical  books   of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  above  all  other 
writings.       We   thus   ascribe  Canonicity  to   a  book  in  the  Bible,  which 
has  a  right  to  a  place  in  the  sacred  collection ;  and  this  right  again  de- 
pends— more  than  on  anything  else — upon  the  question  whether  this  writing 
really   proceeded   from   the  -person   to   whom   it  has   been   ascribed  by 
Jewish  or  Christian  antiquity. 

7.  Highly  important,  though  difficult,  is  the  question  what  judgment  we 
must  form  as  to  the  formation  of  the  Canon  ;  in  other  words,  whether  we 
may  consider  that  the  Christian  Church — to  speak  only  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  the  reception  of  these  particular  writings  into  its  sacred  collection, 
to  the  exclusion  of  others,  has  made  a  wise,  yea,  the  only  right  choice.    The 
answer  is  easy  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Romish  Church,  which  in  this 
act  also  recognises  the  fruit  of  an  infallible  wisdom,  and  confesses  with 
Augustine:  "Scriptures  non  crederem,  jiisi ne commoi'eret  Ecclesice  audoritas." 
Easy  also  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Reformed  Confession,  which  (Con- 
fession of  the  Netherlands,  Art.  5)  appeals  for  the  Canonical  authority  of 
the  whole  of  Holy  Scripture  to  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Ghost     But, 
as  we  have  seen  (§   32),  the  Holy   Ghost  gives  indeed  testimony  to  the 
believer  as  to  the  Saving  Revelation  contained  in  it,  yet  not  on  this  account 
necessarily  to  every  single   part,  and  just  as  little  to  the  Bible  en  bloc.     For 
us,  therefore,  the  question   as  to  the  value  to  be  attached  to  the  collection 
contained  in  the  Canon  is  and  remains  a  purely  historical  question ;  the 
Church,  through  the  medium  of  which  we  received  it,  exists  for  us  not  as 
an  infallible  authority,  but  as  a  venerable  witness  for  the  truth.     But  so 
much  the  more  do  we  rejoice  that  to  the  question,  even  as  thus  presented, 
the  answer  upon  nearer  examination  can  prove  only  satisfactory. 

8.  This  judgment    it  is   not  difficult  to   support.     For   it  is   evident, 
upon   a  careful    comparison,   that,   as   to   contents    and    tendency,    the 
collection    of  the   New  Testament   writings,   taken   all  together,   stands 
far  higher  than  do  those  which  have  been  excluded.   Let  any  one  compare 


ITS  ORIGIN.  175 

the  Canonical  with  the  Apocryphal  Gospels  and  Acts;  the  Apostolic 
Epistles  with  those  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers  and  their  successors,  and 
he  will  become  aware  of  a  difference  very  clearly  appreciable.  The 
very  doubt  which  for  a  time  prevailed  regarding  some  of  the  Antile- 
gomena,  is  a  sign  that  the  Church  has  in  this  by  no  means  proceeded 
in  so  uncritical  a  manner  as  has  sometimes  been  supposed,  and  did  not 
rest  satisfied  so  soon  as  something  edifying  had  been  received  into  the 
sacred  collection.  A  high  value  must  be  attached  by  every  impartial 
critic  to  the  patristic  testimony  concerning  the  origin  of  the  Gospels  and 
Apostolic  Epistles,  when  he  regards,  first,  its  antiquity ;  then  its  independ- 
ence ;  then,  finally,  the  assent  to,  and  approbation  of,  this  testimony 
on  the  part  of  Christian  antiquity ;  frequent  y  also  on  the  part  of  the 
earliest  heretics  :  while  even  in  the  present  day  an  impartial  examination 
of  the  contents  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  entirely  confirms  the  perfect  justice 
thereof.  It  is  asserted,  it  is  true,  that  much  was  wanting  in  point  of 
maturity  in  the  knowledge  and  judgment  of  many  (Papias,  e.g.\  and  that 
their  criticism  generally,  displayed  more  of  a  dogmatic  than  of  a  purely 
historic  character.  But  this  last  accusation  at  least — mostly  repeated 
by  those  whose  own  criticism  of  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament 
is  ruled  by  Naturalistic  prejudice — is  not  so  easily  proved  as  asserted. 
The  oldest  witnesses  speak  not  merely  in  their  own  name,  but  in  that  of 
their  contemporaries  and  companions  in  the  faith,  and  the  high  importance 
of  the  subject,  too,  must,  in  this  case  more  than  ever,  lead  them  to  exer- 
cise great  circumspection.  Even  though  at  first  cne  or  two  Apocryphal 
writings  were  held  in  almost  equal  honour  with  those  of  the  Apostles,  the 
spirit  of  impartial  iove  of  truth  quickly  recognised  the  incongruity,  and 
separated  the  one  from  the  other.  Where  it  appeared  that  in  some  cases, 
even  with  good  intention,  spurious  writings  were  circulated  under  the  name 
of  the  Apostles,  this  was  expressly  opposed,  and,  so  soon  as  made  mani- 
fest, was  condemned  (Tertull.,  De  Baptismo,  cap.  17).  It  is  possible 
indeed  that  one  or  another  ancient  Christian  writing  has  been  left 
out  of  the  Canon,  which  merited  a  place  in  it,  at  least  as  much  as  some 
of  the  Antilegomena.  Not  in  respect  of  every  single  part  of  the  New 
Testament  can  this  its  particular  choice,  in  preference  to  others,  be  equally 
satisfactorily  defended.  But  in  any  case  it  cannot  be  shown  that  anything 
really  indispensable  has  been  left  out  of  the  sacred  Collection,  or  that  any- 
thing entirely  superfluous  has  found  a  place  in  it.  Without  hesitation  therefore 
do  we  regard  the  Canonical  books  of  the  New  Testament  as  an  authentic  and 
precious  collection  of  the  writings  left  by  the  earliest  witnesses  of  the  Lord. 
Not  a  single  writing  lies  before  us,  for  the  Canonicity  of  which  credentials 
of  a  more  or  less  conclusive  nature  cannot  be  adduced.  The  evidences 
for  the  genuineness  of  the  principal  books  of  the  New  Testament  are  much 
more  manifold  and  powerful  than  those  which  can  be  adduced  for  the 
authenticity  even  of  the  most  eminent  productions  of  profane  antiquity. 

9.  As  concerns  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  the  Christian 
Church  has  received  it  from  the  Jews,  yet  not  without  critical  investiga- 
tion. Melito  of  Sardis  (about  the  year  172),  and  Origen  (f  254),  made 
accurate  investigations  amongst  the  Palestinean  Jews  as  to  what  writings 
belonged  to  the  Canon,  although  along  with  these  a  certain  value  was  srivl 


176  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

attached  to  the  Apocryphas  of  the  Old  Testament.  To  the  question  whether 
generally  speaking  it  was  wise  to  rely  on  Jewish  tradition,  an  affirmative 
answer  seems  justified.  For  this  tradition  itself  was  the  fruit  of  a  critical 
examination,  made  at  the  time  of  the  close  of  the  Old  Testament 
Canon,  and  assuredly  not  without  earnestness  and  conscientiousness. 
The  sharply  denned  distinction  made  both  then  and  later,  between 
Canonical  and  Apocryphal  writings — e.g.,  in  those  bearing  the  name  of 
Daniel  and  of  Ezra — can  have  had  its  ground  only  in  a  discriminating 
choice,  the  motives  for  which  are  no  longer  known  to  us,  but  whose  results, 
so  long  as  their  inaccuracy  is  not  demonstrated,  are  deserving  of  confidence. 
Other  proofs  also  of  an  independent  and  liberal  spirit  are  not  wanting  in 
connection  with  this  history.  "  The  collectors  who  could  receive  into  the 
Canon  the  book  of  the  Gentile  woman  Ruth,  the  writing  concerning  the 
extra-Israelite  Emir  Job,  the  song  which  celebrates  the  glory  of  conjugal 
love,  the  book  of  the  denunciations  of  the  prophet  Jonah  in  the  heathen 
city  of  Nineveh,  can  certainly  be  well  distinguished  from  a  forum  of 
Pharisaic  Synedrists  ;  rising  Pharisaism  would  hardly  have  received  such 
books  into  its  Canon  as  sacred "  (Lange).  In  particular  details,  the 
accuracy  of  this  critical  judgment  of  antiquity  is  perhaps  no  longer  to  be 
defended  against  every  possible  objection ;  least  of  all  has  Christian  Dog- 
matics to  regard  this  defence  as  its  proper  task.  But  well  may  it,  with 
grateful  appreciation  of  the  help  of  a  thorough  Isagogics,  regard  the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Old  Testament  as  a  whole  as  authentic  sources  of  our  knowledge 
of  the  Divine  Revelation  given  by  Moses  and  the  Prophets. 

10.  The  position  which  Christian  Theologians,  in  the  spirit  of  the  Refor- 
mation, have  to  occupy  in  relation  to  the  tradition  which  gave  to  the 
Church  its  Canon  is  already  defined  in  principle  by  what  has  been  said. 
It  is  not  the  attitude  of  a  blind  dogmatism,  which  at  once  begins  to  submit 
unreservedly  to  the  authority  of  tradition  ;  just  as  little  that  of  a  lofty 
criticism  which  attaches  to  the  utterances  of  tradition  no  essential  impor- 
tance ;  but  that  of  a  truly  independent,  •  impartial,  patiently  conducted 
investigation.  The  Reformers  received  the  whole  Canon,  as  handed  down 
from  antiquity,  and  their  age  was  certainly  but  little  adapted  to  the  vigorous 
prosecution  of  a  critical  examination  as  to  the  genuineness  of  each  particular 
book.  Yet  it  is  well  known  that  they,  in  the  spirit  of  freedom,  availed 
themselves  of  their  right  as  Christian  Theologians  in  this  respect  also.  The 
judgment  of  Luther  as  to  the  Epistle  of  James,  of  Zwingli  as  to  the  Apoca- 
lypse, of  Calvin  as  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  whether  right  or  wrong 
in  itself,  is  but  the  legitimate  application  of  an  inviolable  principle.  Yea, 
truly,  "  to  know  what  one  can  give  up,  one  must  know  what  one  possesses" 
(Tholuck).  The  history  of  the  difference  which  has  always  been  manifest 
in  regard  to  some  of  the  Antilegomena,  proves  that  even  the  most  orthodox 
Theologians  had  their  own  ideas  as  to  the  Auctor  secundarius  of  the  books 
of  the  Bible.  It  may  be  regretted  that  the  right  of  criticism  is  so  often 
abused  as  a  cloak  for  caprice  and  license,  yet  it  is  just  as  little  reasonable 
as  desirable,  to  regard  the  investigation  of  the  Canon  in  its  whole  or  its 
parts  as  finally  closed.  Not  merely  the  science  of  Criticism,  but  that  also 
of  Apologetics,  has  a  preponderating  interest  in  the  further  discussion  of 
this  question,  especially  as  opposed  to  an  atomistic  criticism,  which  with 


ITS  ORIGIN.  177 

rude  hand  would  tear  out  the  leaves  of  the  Bible  to  scatter  them  to  all  the 
winds  of  heaven. 

n.  All  that  is  called  for  is,  that  the  critical  examination  be  conducted  not 
merely  without  hindrance,  but  also,  so  far  as  possible,  in  an  unprejudiced 
spirit,  and  according  to  fixed  laws,  after  the  maxim,  "  Nee  tcmere,  nectimide" 
which  has  its  just  application  in  this  case  also.  There  is,  with  manifold 
knowledge,  no  less  of  caution  also  required  in  order  to  form,  upon  matters 
such  as  here  present  themselves,  a  really  profound  judgment,  based  upon 
an  adequate  acquaintance  with  the  things  themselves.  Very  easily  may 
one  be  led  away  by  appearances,  very  quickly  also  be  induced  by  personal 
sympathies  to  accept  the  shadow  instead  of  the  reality.  A  striking  example 
of  blind  prepossession  is  afforded,  for  instance,  in  latest  times,  in  the 
uncritical  treatment  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  which — even  though  the  crowd  of 
witnesses  were  doubled — is  not  allowed to  be  genuine,  because  Modernism 
must,  even  at  this  price,  continue  to  pass  for  truth.  Even  in  regard  to  the 
subject  of  this  investigation  the  principle  should  be  held  in  honour,  in  oppo- 
sition to  all  capricious  treatment,  that  only  in  God's  light  can  we  truly  see  light; 
and  Luther's  rule  is  to  be  maintained,  "  That  which  has  not  Christ  as  its 
object  is  not  Apostolic,  even  though  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  had  taught  it 
On  the  other  hand,  to  preach  Christ  is  Apostolic,  even  though  it  were  done 
by  Judas,  Annas,  Pilate,  or  Herod."  Chiistian  science,  moreover,  has  no 
sacred  collection  to  make  up  out  of  a  number  of  existing  documents,  but 
ever  anew  to  apply  the  test  to  the  collection  already  existing.  If  every 
individual  is  to  regard  the  whole  critical  and  isagogical  work  as  a  refaire, 
this  will  at  least  attain  to  something  of  the  labour  of  Penelope ;  and  it  is 
still  a  question  whether  this  mode  of  proceeding  deserves  the  name  of 
genuine  theological  criticism.  We  have,  in  this  case  also,  not  now  to  pro- 
duce the  reality,  but,  with  interest  and  affection,  to  seek  to  understand  our 
true  position  in  regard  to  that  already  existing,  and  to  separate  the  different 
elements  with  that  discriminating  and  genuinely  critical  tact,  which  is  a  fruit 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  A  criticism  of  the  Canon,  to  possess  any  value,  must 
be  something  more  than  the  expression  of  a  merely  subjective  opinion,  held 
perhaps  but  for  the  moment.  True  theological  criticism  will  besides  never 
forget  that  the  sacred  collection,  though  owing  its  formation  to  men,  is  yet 
something  more  than  the  fruit  of  human  reflection  and  human  wisdom 
alone. 

12.  Are  we  really  justified  in  speaking  of  the  providential  origin  of  the 
Canon  ?  However  difficult  it  is  here  to  define  anything  in  detail,  we  do 
not  hesitate  to  return  an  affirmative  answer  to  the  question  as  it  thus  stands. 
And  that  not  simply  in  the  general  sense,  that  as  everything,  so  also  the 
formation  of  the  Koran,  the  Bible,  etc.,  took  place  under  a  higher  guid- 
ance ;  but  in  the  specific  sense,  that  here  is  to  be  observed  a  fruit  and 
manifestation  of  God's  peculiar  care  for  the  highest  interests  of  humanity. 
If  God  really  willed  the  establishment  of  a  Kingdom  of  God  upon  earth, 
and  its  propagation  by  means  of  the  Scriptures  (§  xxxv.  6),  then  the  pre- 
servation and  collection  of  writings  destined  to  this  end  cannot  have  been 
effected  without  His  especial  guidance.  Assuredly,  not  in  the  fixing  of  the 
Canon,  any  more  than  in  any  other  act,  was  the  Church  infallible,  but  just 
as  little  was  she  forsaken  by  the  Spirit  of  truth,  and  she  was  notably  in 

N 


178  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

possession  of  a  certain  tact  for  discriminating  between  Apostolic  and  non- 
Apostolic  writings,  a  tact  which  by  practice  and  experience,  by  conflict  and 
reaction,  would  attain  to  a  rare  degree  of  delicacy.  Tact— one  of  the 
ancient  Charismata — has  in  this  case  done  its  work  in  so  happy  a  way,  that 
we,  for  our  part  at  least,  and  many  others  with  us,  would  not  feel  justified 
in  definitely  contesting,  in  regard  to  any  single  book  of  the  New  Testament, 
its  title  to  a  place  in  the  Canon.  In  this  issue  we  may  acknowledge  with 
reverence  the  fruit  of  a  higher  influence,  of  which  we  hold  fast  to  the  on 
(the  fact),  even  though  we  may  not  be  able  to  define  the  TTWS  (the  manner). 
Before  any  one  rejects  this  position  as  based  on  an  a  priori  view,  let  him 
consider  whether  from  a  Christian  standpoint  its  absolute  denial  is  possible, 
and  whether  this  does  not  lead  in  its  consequences  to  far  greater  difficulties 
than  its  reverent  acknowledgment.  Certain  is  it,  at  least,  that  what  may  be 
considered  d  priori  highly  probable,  is  d  posteriori,  upon  a  careful  considera- 
tion of  the  spirit,  the  contents,  and  the  connected  whole  of  the  Bible,  in  a 
surprising  manner  confirmed.  Nothing  here  can  be  strictly  demonstrated, 
but  to  no  small  extent  is  it  to  be  observed  that,  for  any  one  who  believes 
in  a  living  God  and  a  kingdom  of  God  instituted  by  Him,  the  matter  is 
riised  above  all  reasonable  doubt. 

1 3.  In  itself  the  rise  of  such  a  national  literature  as  that  of  the  Old 
Testament,  so  early  and  so  rapidly  disseminated  among  a  people  like  the 
Jews,  in  every  other  respect  so  much  behindhand,  is  a  wholly  "unique 
phenomenon  in  the  history  of  the  world,  which  of  itself  suggests  a 
higher  guidance.  For  the  Old  Testament  manifests  a  dignity,  a  wealth  of 
thought,  a  depth  of  contents,  combined  with  a  diversity  and  harmony  of 
forms,  of  which  we  should  in  vain  seek  the  counterpart  elsewhere.  "Se 
peut-il,  qu'un  livre  a  la  fois  si  sublime  et  si  simple  soit  I1oeuvre  d'un 
homme?"  exclaimed  Rousseau.  Is  it  accidental  that  the  Scriptures, 
precisely  a  short  time  before  the  appearance  of  Christianity  in  the  world, 
should  be  translated  into  Greek  ?  Accidental,  that  amongst  the  first 
witnesses  of  Christ  there  should  be  found  writers  of  an  ability  like  that 
of  a  Luke,  a  Paul,  or  a  John  ?  Acciden  al,  that  these  writings  should  so 
speedily  be  scattered  and  multiplied,  that  to  destroy  them,  or  even  to 
tamper  with  their  contents,  should  thenceforth  be  impossible ;  that  they 
were  preserved  throughout  the  Middle  Ages ;  disinterred  again  at  the  Re- 
formation from  amongst  the  rubbish  of  the  convents  ;  that  in  our  own  day 
new  proofs  of  the  credibility  of  the  Bible  are  continually  coming  to  light, 
proofs  drawn  even  from  the  ruins  of  Babylon,  or  the  excavations  of 
Nineveh?  It  is  remarkable  that  none  of  the  sacred  writers  thought  of 
forming  a  Bible.  Men  of  the  most  different  natural  constitution,  manner  of 
thought  and  life,  of  development  and  gifts,  separated  from  each  other  by 
an  interval  of  years  or  ages,  labour  in  entire  independence  of  each  other, 
and  yet  there  arises  as  a  whole  the  Messianic  Expectation  of  Israel,  the  Life 
of  Jesus,  the  History  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  on  earth.  Cicero  speaks  of 
it  as  something  inconceivable,  that  out  of  a  number  of  letters  promiscuously 
arranged  the  Annals  of  Ennius  shouid  arise.  Equally  absurd  would  be  the 
supposition  that  out  of  a  number  of  fragments  of  Jewish  and  early  Christian 
literature  a  Bible  should  result.  It  is  as  has  been  said,  "  In  the  Latin  lite- 
rature there  breathes  almost  audibly  and  palpably  the  spirit  of  valour;  in 


ITS  EXTENT.  179 

the  Greek,  that  of  Attic  wisdom ;  and  in  the  Hebrew,  the  Spirit  of  God," 
and  with  Augustine  we  repeat,  "  Mira  profunditas,  mi  Deus,  mira  profun- 
ditas."  Let  any  one  read  the  same  history — that  of  Joseph,  for  instance, 
which  has  called  forth  the  admiration  of  Voltaire — first  in  the  Bible  and 
then  in  the  Koran,  and  he  will  perceive  what  an  entirely  different  spirit 
meets  us  in  the  former ;  and  how  this  spirit,  too  lofty  for  human  creation, 
everywhere  from  beginning  to  end,  in  the  midst  of  the  most  perfect  freedom, 
manifests  the  fairest  harmony.  At  every  step  we  must  exclaim,  The  Bible 
is  a  truly  human  book,  and  yet,  at  the  same  time,  something  more  than  any 
other  human  book  ;  and  even  in  the  history  of  the  most  violent  assaults 
made  upon  it,  the  old  proverb  is  but  confirmed,  "  The  more  they  amuse  them- 
selves in  smiting  me,  the  more  hammers  they  use  up  in  doing  //."*  Result, 
"  The  secret  of  the  equanimity  of  our  modern  theologians,  even  amidst  the 
perils  of  critical  operations,  lies  precisely  in  the  clear  recognition  of  the 
fact  that  faith  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Canon  is  not  the  essential  condition 
— not  even  the  first  step  necessary — in  order  to  come  to  faith  in  Christ;  that 
with  this  faith  in  the  Scriptures,  the  Christian  faith  is  not  yet  by  any'means 
given,  or  even  its  foundation  laid  ;  finally,  that  the  moral,  religious,  actual 
— not  merely  intellectual— process  of  life,  fails  not,  for  any  one  who  has 
uprightly  and  constantly  yielded  himself  to  its  influence,  to  lead — as  to  life 
and  full  satisfaction  in  Christ,  so  also — to  the  recognition  of  the  normative 
and  Divine  authority  of  the  documents  of  Divine  revelation  "  (Dorner.) 

Compare  the  dissertation  of  D.  F.  VAN  HEIJST  on  the  Canon  of  Eusebius  (Hague  Soc., 
1834)  ;  on  the  whole  subject  of  Canon  and  Holy  Scripture,  that  of  NITZSCH,  Stud.  tt. 
A'rit.  (1843),  ii.,  and  two  articles  of  OEHLER  and  LANDERER,  in  Herzog,  R.  E.  vii. ; 
also,  H.  W.  J.  THIERSCH,  Versuch  zur  Herstellung  dcs  histor.  Standp.  fitr  die  Kritik  dcs 
N.  T.  (1845);  a  paper  by  H.  EWALD,  translated  in  Waarh.  in  Liefde(\^>yS}t\\\.,  pp. 
590 — 603;  DORNER,  Jahrb.  fur  deutsche  Theol.  (1861),  ii.,  p.  413,  sqq. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Historical  review  of  the  progress  of  the  two  opposite  views  with  regard  to  the  Bible. — 
Elucidation  of  some  points,  of  particular  importance  for  Christian  Dogmatics,  from  the 
history  of  the  Canon. — The  right  and  duty  of  free  criticism  of  the  genuineness  and  textual 
integrity  of  the  different  books  of  the  Bible. — Scientific  and  moral  significance  of  the 
position  held  by  modern  criticism  in  relation  to  the  utterances  of  Israelitish  and  Christian 
tradition. — Grounds  and  limits  of  the  recognition  of  the  providential  Canon. — Total 
impression  which  we  involuntarily  receive  from  the  Bible  as  a  whole. — Canonical  and 
Apocryphal. 


SECTION  XXXVII.— ITS  EXTENT. 

From  the  Canonical  books  of  Holy  Scripture  the  Apocryphal 
books    of    the    Old   and   the  New  Testament  must  be  well  dis- 


*  Plus  a  me  frapper  on  s'amuse, 
Taut  plus  de  marteaux  on  y  use. 

N  2 


180  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

tinguished.  Although,  to  a  certain  degree  of  undeniable  import- 
ance, they  are  nevertheless,  neither  in  an  historical,  nor  a  religious, 
nor  a  moral  point  of  view,  to  be  placed  on  a  level  with  the  fore- 
named  ;  least  of  all  in  regard  to  that  end  for  which  Christian 
Dogmatics  sees  itself  called  upon  to  consult  the  Sacred  Scriptures 
The  position  which  the  Protestant  Church  and  Theology,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  Roman  Catholic,  has  always  taken  in  regard 
to  this  Apocryphal  literature,  is  justified  as  well  by  history  as  by 
the  nature  of  the  case,  and  ought  on  that  account  to  be  perma- 
nently maintained. 

Already  has  the  value  of  the  Holy  Scripture  begun  to  unfold  itself 
before,  our  eyes  :  but  how  far  does  the  domain  of  Holy  Scripture,  properly 
so  called,  extend  ?  and  is  there  sufficient  reason  for  continuing  to  maintain 
the  boundary  line  which  divides  the  Canonical  from  the  Apocryphal 
Scriptures  ?  Before  we  enter  farther  upon  the  domain  of  Bibliology,  this 
question  must  receive  a  reply. 

i.  By  the  Apocryphal  (l)eutero-Canonical)  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
we  understand  those  later  writings  of  the  Jews,  which,  though  not  originally 
belonging  to  the  sacred  collection,  were  added  thereto  in  the  Greek  trans- 
lation, and  are  enumerated  (as  well  as  in  other  Confessions)  in  the  sixth 
article  of  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church.  The  name  points  to  writings  of 
uncertain  origin,  which — not  read  in  public — stood  in  more  or  less  of  oppo- 
sition to  the  Se8r;/j.offiev/j.4va,  or  scriptures  publics.  In  connection  with  some 
of  the  Grecian  mysteries,  also,  were  found  such  Kpinrrd  (iibt  i  absconditi),  and 
in  proportion  also  as  the  Gnostics  of  the  earliest  Christian  centuries  ap- 
pealed to  such-like  writings,  the  word  Apocrypha  began  to  be  employed  in 
an  increasingly  unfavourable  sense.  Even  at  an  early  period  the  difference 
of  opinions  as  to  the  proper  value  of  the  Apocryphas  of  the  Old  Testament 
comes  into  prominence.  Origen  had  but  little  liking  for  them,  and  Cyril 
of  Jerusalem  recommended  to  his  Catechumens,  for  their  study,  no  other 
books  of  the  Bible  than  the  Canonical.  Jerome  even  drew  a  sharp  line  of 
separation  between  these  and  the  Apocrypha,  and  although  he  permitted  its 
reading  " ad  cedificationem"  he  nevertheless  expressly  added,  " non  ad 
auctoritatem  dogmalnm  Ecdesia  confirmandam"  A  tendency,  however,  set 
in  in  the  West,  under  the  influence  of  Augustine,  more  and  more  towards 
placing  them  on  an  equality  with  the  Canonical  writings.  In  proportion  as 
the  knowledge  of  Hebrew  became  rare,  and  the  LXX.  was  held  in  a  place 
of  honour,  with  the  less  hesitation  were  both  classes  of  books  used  inter- 
changeably. Hence  it  was  that  the  opinion  of  Augustine,  at  the  Councils 
of  Hippo  (393)  and  Carthage  (397),  became  the  prevailing  one,  while  that 
of  Jerome  counted  ever  fewer  supporters.  The  conflict  upon  this  point 
was  allowed  to  slumber  during  the  Middle  Ages,  but  after  the  Reformation 
it  arose  again  on  different  sides.  Luther,  following  the  example  of  the 
Greek  Church,  maintained  anew  the  distinction  between. the  Canonical  and 
the  Apocryphal  writings,  and  Carlstadt  even  devoted  a  special  work  to  its 


ITS  EXTENT.  l8l 

defence  (1520;,  The  Council  of  Trent, -on  the  other  hand,  placed  the 
books  of  the  second  Canon,  almost  entirely  on  a  level  with  those  of  the 
•'irst,  and  in  regard  to  this  pronounced  its  anathema  upon  those  who  should 
think  differently.  The  Church  of  Rome  boldly  appeals  for  the  confirmation 
of  her  dogmas — the  doctrine  of  Prayer  on  behalf  of  the  Dead,  of  the  Inter- 
cession of  Saints,  of  Exorcism,  etc. — to  the  testimony  of  the  Apocryphal 
books  of  the  Old  Testament.  Tne  Reformed  Church,  on  the  contrary,  has, 
in  regard  to  this  question,  in  opposition  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  placed 
itself  in  fact  once  more  at  the  standpoint  of  Jerome,  as  distinguished  from 
that  of  Augustine.  Even  to  the  second  half  of  the  present  century  the  so- 
called  Apocrypha  controversy  was  continued  in  Germany;  and  it  is  on  this 
account  of  importance  to  devote  further  consideration  to  the  grounds  upon 
which  the  Confession  of  our  Church,  as  of  other  Reformed  Churches,  has 
maintained  this  distinction. 

2.  On  the  one  side  the  Confession  of  Faith  [of  the  Church  of  the  Nether- 
lands] permits  that  "  these  writings  may  indeed  be  read,  and  instruction 
derived  therefrom,  in  so  far  as  they  are  in  harmony  with  the   Canonical 
books."     A  like  spirit  is  breathed  by  Luther,  expressed  in  the  superscrip- 
tion upon  this  part  of  his  translation  of  the  Bible,  and  in  his  later  declara- 
tion, that  they  may   be  read    "ad  moriun   edification  em   et  confirmationem 
fideliu  m  "  (not  "fidei  ").     And  this  with  justice — for  they  certainly  fill  up  the 
gap  between  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New,  afford   striking  proofs  of 
God's  care  for  His   people,  complete  the  history  of  the  preparation  for 
Christ's  appearing,  and  contain  excellent  lessons  of  morality.     But  at  the 
same  time  it  is  disputed  that  they  have  "the  power  and  authority  to  confirm 
a  single  article   of  faith  or  of  religion,  much  less  to  the  diminution  of  the 
authority  of  the  other  sacred  books."     Consistently  with  this  view,  in  the 
authorised  translation  of  Holland,   these  books  are  not  placed  between 
those  of  the  Old  and  those  of  the  New  Testament,  but  only  after  the  latter, 
and  with  the  addition  of  a  word  of  caution.     And  this  also  will  be  seen  to 
be  not  without  justice,  when  we  place  both  in  the  light  of  history. 

3.  For  it  is  clear  that  the  Palestinean  Jews  from  the  very  first  excluded 
the  Apocryphal  books  from  their  Canon,  and  it  is  not  probable  that  the 
Alexandrine  Jews  favoured  in  this  respect  a  different  view.     One  or  two 
dubious  traces  of  their  use  excepted,  we  find  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  New 
Testament  no  single  appeal,  or  even  reference,  to  this  part  of  the  literature. 
Our  Lord  cites  the  Canonical  books  of  the   Old  Testament  as  a  well- 
compacted    whole,1   but  never    alludes  to  the   Apocrypha  ;    and  just   as 
little  do  the  Apostles,  however  frequently,  for  the  rest,  they  employ  the 
Greek  translation.     The  opinion  of  the  earliest  Church  also  is  not  favour- 
able to  the  Apocryphas  ;  and  the  supposition  of  some  Roman  Catholic  Theo- 
logians, that  the  Apostles  gave  to  the  newly  founded  Churches,  along  with 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,   these  books,  too,  is  at  least  unproved. 
Among  the  later  Jews,  finally,  we  discover  a  growing  antipathy  for  the 
Deutero-canonical  writings  ;  doubtless  in  part  from  dislike  to  the  profane 
language  in  which  they  are  written,  but  at  the  same  time  from  a  sense  of 
their  less  high  value. 

1  Matt,  xxiii.  35. 


1 82  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

4.  And  then  as  to  their  contents  :  that  a  great  part  of  these  books  cannot 
claim  a  purely   historical   character,  is  universally    acknowledged.     The 
third  and  fourth  books  of  Maccabees  were  not  even  mentioned  at  Trent,  and 
that  of  Judith  had  been  already  declared  by  Luther  to  be  a  fable.     Regarded 
from  a  moral  point  of  view,  the  book  of  Wisdom  and  that  of  Jesus  Sirach 
(Ecclesiasticus)  unquestionably  contain   much  that  is  beautiful,  but  they 
owe  it  especially  to  the  imitation  of  Solomon's  wisdom,  which,  however, 
they  scarcely  equal,  and  certainly  do  not   surpass.       As  concerns  their 
religious  character,  they  cannot  by  any  means  be  regarded  as  the   pure 
expression  of  the  genuine  Israelitish  Theocratic  spirit,  but  contain,  on  the 
contrary,  not  a  few  heterogeneous  elements.      The  writers  dwell  in  great 
part  upon  a  glorious  past,  without  furnishing  an  essentially  new  or  entirely 
pure  doctrine  for  the  present  or  future.     Especially  are  we  struck  with  the 
almost  entire  absence  of  anything  like  a  Christologic  element,  properly  so 
called.     One  or  two  scattered  allusions  excepted,  no  single  new  link  is 
added  to  the  chain  of  the  Messianic  expectation.     We  hear  only  feeble 
echoes  of  ancient  prophetic  voices,  but  no  new  ones ;  the  creative  age  of 
the  national  religious  life  has  been  superseded  by  the  purely  reproductive 
one.     Finally,  even  as  to  their  form,  these  writings  stand  far  below  the  bulk 
of  the  Canonical  writings  ;  the  animated  language  of  original  poetry  is 
wanting,  and  the  tone  of  inspiration  has  given  place  to  that  of  calm  reflec- 
tion.    If  we  add  all  this  together,  we  find  ourselves  justified  in  speaking  of 
a  difference,   not   only   in   degree,   but  in  kind,  between   the  Canonical 
writings  and  the  Apocrypha. 

5.  Much   lower  even  than  the  last-named   books   stand   the   so-called 
Pseudepigrapha  of  the  Old  Testament,  while  upon  the  Apocryphal  Gospels 
and  Acts  of  the  New  Testament  no  more  favourable  judgment  can  be 
pronounced.     It  is  true  we  cannot  deny  all  value  whatever  to  these  last. 
They    have,    on    the    contrary,   a    significance    partly    historical,    partly 
apologetical,  and  only  from  the  Naturalistic  standpoint  could  any  one  fin  I 
the  courage  to  speak  here  of  a  secondary  myth-formation,  after  the  first  of 
the  Canonical  Gospels.      He,  however,  who  judges  impartially  will  very 
soon  discover  that  he  is  here  moving  in  a  wholly  different  circle  of  thought 
from  that  of  the  consecrated  soil.     Certainly  the  writers  are  under  the 
influence,  not  merely  of  a  boundless  craving  for  the  miraculous,  but  also  of 
a  strong  desire  to  fill  up  all  the  gaps  in  the  Evangelical  history,  and  to  exalt 
the  mother  of  our  Lord  in  an  extravagant  manner.     What  wonder  that 
single  honest  doubters  have  been  brought  to  a  believing  acknowledgment 
of  the  truth  of  the  Apostolic  Gospel,  precisely  by  a  comparison  with  it  of 
these  products  of  the  ancient  Christian  imagination  ? 

6.  The  distinction  above  maintained  bet\veen  the  Canonical  and  the 
Apocryphal  writings  is  dogmatically  of  great  importance.     On  the  one 
hand,  because  it  justifies  in  the  most  natural  way  all  that  has  been  before 
said  concerning  the  providential  origin  of  the  Canon;  but  also,  on  the  other 
hand,  because  it  demonstrates  afresh  the  absolute  necessity  for  a  careful 
critical  investigation  according  to  a  fixed  principle.     The  Scripture  is  shown 
to  be  Sacred  in  proportion  as,  whether  clearly  or  by  implication,  it  testifies 
of,  and  points  to,  Christ  ;•  while    the   entire  absence    of    the    prophetic 
Christologic  element  in  itself  degrades  an  otherwise  useful  and  important 


ITS   CHARACTER.  183 

writing  to  the  class  of  the  profane.  Christ  remains  the  touchstone  of 
Biblical  criticism  (comp.  §  xxxvi  10),  yet  not  merely  the  Pauline  Christ — 
which  was  perhaps  the  one-sidedness  of  Luther — but  Christ,  as  far  as 
possible,  contemplated  on  all  sides,  and  in  all  His  fulness.  For  such  a 
criticism  as  has  received  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  ihe  ess.ntial  difference 
between  Canonical  and  Apocryphal  will,  after  a  temporary  obscuration, 
ever  afresh  come  to  the  light 

Comp.  GIESELER  Was  'leisst.  Apocryphisch,  in  the  Studien  u.  Kritiken,  (1829) ;  KEIL, 
Hist.  Crit.  Jtitr.  to  Apocrypltas  of  0.  T.  (1861) ;  the  article  of  OEHLER,  Canon  of  the 
O.  T.,  in  Herzog,  A'.  E.  vii.,  p.  260,  sqq.,  with  the  literature  there  adduced;  C. 
TISCHENDORF,  De  Evang.  Apocr.  orlgiue  et  usu  (Society  of  the  Hague,  1851);  HOFMAN, 
in  Herzog,  R.  E.  xii.;  J.  J.  VAN  OOSTERZEE,  Life  of  Jesus,  i.,  §  15;  Christology,  i.,  p. 
495.  m->  »•»  P-  486,  sqq. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Further  illustration  and  explanation  of  the  varying  standpoint  of  the  Christian  Church 
of  earlier  and  later  times  in  regard  to  the  Apocryphas  of  the  Old  Testament. — Comparison 
of  the  judgment  in  the  Confessional  Standards  of  the  different  Churches  01  the  Reformation. 
— The  present  state  of  the  question.  — The  historical,  moral,  and  religious  value  of  the 
Apocryphas  of  the  Old  Testament. — Which  are  the  Pseudepigrapha  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  the  Apocryphas  of  the  New  ? — Is  it  possible,  even  from  the  Naturalistic  stand- 
point, rightly  to  defend  the  distinction  between  the  Canonical  and  Apocryphal  writings  ? — 
What  significance  has  this  distinction  for  Bibliology  and  for  the  whole  of  Christian 
Dogmatics  ? 


SECTION   XXXVIII. — ITS  CHARACTER. 

As  well  regarded  as  a  whole,  as  in  its  particular  parts,  the 
Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  display  a  prepon- 
derating historic  character.  The  Revelation  of  Salvation  comes  to 
us  in  an  historical  form,  of  which  the  Bible  is  the  depository,  and 
Christ  the  centre.  The  credibility  of  the  sacred  history — -fides 
Jiuinaiia,  Axiopistia — is  on  this  account  a  question  of  life  and  death 
for  the  Christian  belief  in  revelation  ;  and  must  be  made  apparent 
by  means  of  an  historico-critical  investigation.  In  maintaining  this 
credibility,  it  is  of  importance,  especially  in  our  time,  to  proceed 
from  the  well-authenticated  contents  of  the  New  Testament,  thence 
to  look  back  upon  the  domain  of  the  Old,  and  to  judge  of  each 
part  of  the  history,  not  only  in  itself,  but  above  all  in  connexion 
with  the  great  and  glorious  whole. 

i.  After  the  Essential  Contents,  Origin,  and  Extent  of  Holy  Scripture, 


184  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

we  must  now  take  into  consideration  its  Character,  properly  so  called. 
That  character  is  no  other  than  that  of  the  Saving  Revelation  itself,  of 
which  it  is  the  record.  If  we  had  to  express  in  a  single  word  what  the 
Bible  properly  speaking  is,  we  should  be  able  to  choose  no  better  than  this : 
the  Bible  is,  before  and  above  all  other  things,  HISTORY.  We  naturally  do  not 
mean  that  the  Bible  has,  as  its  contents,  nothing  else  than  the  historical 
narratives  :  but  that,  regarded  as  a  whole,  it  fully  deserves  the  name  of 
an  historical  memorial ;  for  even  the  didactic,  poetic,  prophetic  parts 
may  be  brought  into  natural  connection  with  this  historic  whole.  The 
Psalms,  for  example,  belong  to  the  history  of  the  inner  life  of  David  and 
others ;  the  Prophetic  writings,  to  the  history  of  the  Theocracy  under  the 
reign  of  particular  kings  ;  the  Pauline  epistles,  to  the  history  of  the  Apostolic 
Church.  Thus  the  historic  character  of  the  whole  dominates  the  sum  of 
the  particular  parts ;  and  while  the  history  of  the  Old  Testament  leads  us 
as  by  the  hand  of  God  to  Christ,  that  of  the  New  leads  us  as  by  the  hand 
of  Christ  to  God.  Yea,  as  Holy  Scripture  in  the  beginning  speaks  of  life  in 
an  earthly  Paradise,  so  it  reveals  to  us  at  the  end  a  heavenly  Paradise  in 
the  faintly  glimmering  distance  :  the  golden  circle  returns  at  its  close  to 
its  point  of  departure.  Between  these  two  Paradises  the  history  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God  develops  itself  in  different  phases,  in  ever  more  majestic 
proportions,  and  the  end  is  only  then  when  is  heard  the  word  :  "  It  is 
done  I"  1 

2.  How  admirably  this  its  historic  character  renders  the  Bible  adapted  to 
become  the  vehicle  of  God's  Revelation,  is  well-nigh  self-evident.     Let  any 
one  compare  in  this  respect  the  Koran  with  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
the  New  Testament.     The  Bible  has  been  termed  the  great  lesson-book  of 
humanity  ;  it  can  be  so  solely  by  virtue  of  this  its  peculiar  character.     Pre- 
cisely because  Holy  Scripture  contains  such  a  number  of  highly  remarkable 
facts,  has  it  also  become  the  fruitful  mother  of  the  highest  ideas.     It  thereby 
reproduces  the  Saving  Revelation,  as  it  were,  before  the  eye  of  every  one,  and 
gives  us  not  only  to  hear  of  it,  but  also  to  contemplate  it,  to  live  it 
through  once  more,  and  precisely  in  this  way  to  understand  it  better. 

3.  If — as  surrounded  by  a  circle  of  facts — we  ask  after  the  great  and 
unchangeable  centre,  this  can  be  no  other  than  Christ,  the  historical  Christ 
as — in  contradistinction  from  the  mere  ideal  one  of  Modern  philosophy — 
we  emphatically  name  Him.     We  call  Him  the  centre  of  sacred  history,  not 
because  each  particular  circumstance  stands  in  immediate  relation  to  Him, 
but  because  this  history  in  its  totality  unceasingly  points  to  Him,  or  then 
again  proceeds  immediately  from  Him.     The  Christ  lies  potentially  in  the 
history  of  Paradise,  as  the  oak  lies  potentially  in  the  acorn.     To  bring 
about  His  appearing,   Israel  is  separated,  guided,  formed,  chastened,  re- 
deemed.    Ever  more  clear  does  the  Messianic  hope  become  in  the  course 
of  the  ages.     Finally,  He  Himself  comes  ;  a  host  of  heralds  precedes  Him, 
a  cloud  of  witnesses   follows  Him.     In  one  word,  there  is  not  a  point  in 
this  circle,  from  which  a  line  may  not  be  drawn  terminating  at  last  in  this 
centre.     The  Bible  is  a  Christologic  book,  a  biography  of  the  Christ  on  an 

'  lYyope,  Rev.  xxi.  6,  "  Het  \%  geschied ;"  with  an  allusion  to  the  word  "  Geschiedenis, " 
history.     This  paranomasia  is  also  preserved  in  the  German. 


ITS   CHARACTER,  185 

immeasurable  scale.  Its  testimony  of  salvation  is  as  a  symphony  of  the 
most  varied  tones,  but  of  all  of  which  He  is  the  key-note.  All  truth  is  here 
concealed  within  the  covering  of  a  Fact,  and  the  Fact  of  facts  concen- 
trates itself  in  an  historical  Person. 

4.  The  high  importance  of  the  examination  as  to  the  credibility  of  the 
Biblical  documents  is  from  this  standpoint  seif-evident.  If  it  were 
established  on  good  grounds  that  the  Bible  relates  anything  as  a  fact  of 
Revelation,  which  had  an  existence  only  in  the  imagination  of  the  narrator, 
we  could  no  longer  revere  it  as  a  trustworthy  document  of  Divine  revela- 
tion. Hence  the  powerful  efforts  which  have  been  made  by  the  Apologetes 
of  earlier  and  later  times  to  establish — next  to  the  authenticity  and 
integrity — especially  the  Axiopistia  of  the  sacred  Scriptures.  No  doubt,  in 
this  case  also,  that  which  is  good  has  been  now  and  then  overdone,  and 
the  distinction,  made  wisely  and  according  to  truth  by  the  older  Theologians, 
between  historical  and  saving  faith,  has  been  too  much  lost  sight  of.  But 
this  one-sidedness  must  not  lead  us  to  the  opposite  error,  into  which  they 
fall  who — we  had  almost  said,  "  with  a  light  heart  " — assert  that  the 
Christian  faith  is  absolutely  independent  of  the  results  of  historico-critical 
investigation.  At  least,  if  by  the  Christian  faith  is  meant  the  believing 
acknowledgment  of  the  Supernatural  character  of  Christianity,  and  of  the 
Divine  dignity  of  Christ,  this  assertion  is  in  our  estimation  altogether 
untrue.  We  can  here  only  repeat  and  insist  upon  what  we  have  before 
said  (§32,  iii.  i)  against  a  sharp  line  of  separation  between  ideas  and  facts. 
He  who  dissevers  Christianity  from  its  historic  basis,  fails  therein  in  a  most 
melancholy  way  to  recognise  its  character  as  a  Revelation,  and  with  all  his 
might  plays  into  the  hand  of  Naturalism.  No  doubt,  "  to  love  God  and 
one's  neighbour  were  true  religion,  even  though  not  a  single  miracle  had 
ever  taken  place  ; "  but  it  remains  a  question,  wherefore  he  who  applies 
himself  with  all  his  power  to  accomplish  this  duty,  yet  claims  for  himself 
and  those  who  are  like-minded  the  name  of  Christian  ;  and  this  question 
itself  calls  forth  an  historical  examination  as  to  the  person  of  Christ  and 
the  origin  of  Christianity.  But  Christianity  proclaims  itself  not  only  as  the 
historical  manifestation  of  true  Religion  in  a  more  or  less  exalted  person, 
it  appears  as  the  Revelation  of  a  directly  Divine  plan  of  Salvation,  a 
thought  of  Redemption  embodied  in  a  number  of  facts.  "  Not  as  tare  and 
tret  to  nett  weight  is  the  Christian  history  related  to  the  ideas,  so  that  we 
must  subtract  the  one  to  obtain  the  naked  farit ;  but  as  body  and  soul, 
where  to  dissect  and  cut  is  to  kill  "  (Tholuck).  Or,  we  may  say,  fact  and 
idea  stand  to  each  other  as  the  alabaster  lamp  to  the  light  which  is 
therein  placed  and  enkindled.  Take  the  light  away,  and  the  beauty  fades  ; 
break  in  pieces  the  vase,  and  the  light  is  extinguished  with  the  first  gust  of 
wind :  combined,  the  lighted  lamp  presents  to  you  the  image  of  the 
history  of  Salvation.  Distinction  is  necessary,  but  separation  fatal ;  the 
so-called  religion  of  Jesus,  which  forms  the  residuum  after  the  above- 
named  process,  is,  properly  speaking,  no  other  than  that  which  already  was 
written  before  His  coming,  though  then  less  legibly,  in  every  human  heart, 
and  which,  without  any  special  revealing  act  of  God,  has  come  forth  most 
clearly  in  Jesus,  so  far,  at  least,  as  we  can  yet  trace.  We  have  already 
amply  shown  what  becomes  of  all  Christian  faith,  yea,  of  all  Religion, 


1 86  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

as  soon  as  the  facts  in  the  history  of  Salvation  are  cast  overboard 
as  so  much  useless  ballast.  It  is  therefore  a  perverted  mode  of  proceeding 
to  look  down  upon  the  Apologetic  defence  of  the  historic  credibility  of  the 
sacred  writers,  as  the  fruit  of  Arminian  or  Socinian  one-sidedness  ;  and 
equally  unreasonable  to  raise  loud  tones  of  complaint  about  the  tediousness 
and  difficulty  of  an  examination  such  as  is  indispensably  requisite  for  the 
attaining  of  this  end.  "  Que  cThommes  entre  JDicu  ct  moi /"  ("What  a 
multitude  of  persons  between  God  and  myself!'')  Not  a  single  one,  if 
need  be,  is  our  answer,  where  the  great  vital  question  is  at  stake,  but, 
naturally,  not  a  few  where  the  Theologian  is  called  upon  to  justify  his 
confession,  "  We  have  not  followed  cunningly  devised  fables."  2 

5.  The  required  examination  must  be  conducted  in  the  way  of  objective 
as  well  as  subjective  criticism.     (Comp.  p.  131.)     Before  anything  else,  the 
question  whether  the  sacred  writers  could  really  know  the  truth  and  wished 
to  tell  it  must  be  answered.       He  who  looks  down  upon  this  mode  of 
proceeding  as  antiquated  and  unscientific,  forgets  that  it  is  required  by  the 
nature  of  the  case,  and  is  withal  eminently  adapted  to  the  end  in  view.     But 
then,  with  the  criticism  of  the  witnesses,  must  that  of  the  narrative  go  hand 
in  hand,  and  the  one  as  well  as  the  other  be  conducted  as  impartially  as 
possible.     Absolutely  impartial  is  no  one  in  dealing  with  this  matter  ;  this 
is  admitted  with  praiseworthy  frankness  by  the  Apostle  of  "  Voraus-setzungs- 
losigkeit"    (freedom    from  presupposition)  himself.3      But  yet  it  can  and 
may  be  demanded  that  one  should  proceed  from  no  arbitrary  presupposi- 
tions, but  should  as  far  as  possible  keep  mind  and  spirit  open  to  receive 
without    prepossession    impressions  of   truth.       He  who    chooses  as  his 
starting-point  the  dogmatic  hypothesis,  that  one  Biblical  narrative  cannot 
possibly  conflict  with  another,  is  equally  as  prejudiced  as  he  who  allows  his 
historical   examination   to   be   guided   by   the   philosophic    premiss    that 
miracles  are  impossible.     In  the  former  case,  one  will  violently  distort  the 
history  ;  in  the   latter,  arbitrarily  limit   it ;    in  either   case  one  does  not 
investigate   a  history,  but   manufacture   it;    one  does   not   criticise,   but 
construct.      The  result  of  the  investigation  is,  then,  naturally  to  confirm 
the  given  premises,  but  precisely  on  this  account  to  excite  and   justify 
distrust     It  is  as  with  the  Alchymists,  who,  after  a  complicated  chemical 
process,  actually  had  the  good  fortune  to  discover  at  the  bottom  of  the  cup 
gold,  which  they  themselves  Jiad  before  placed  there.     "  When  the  principle  of 
the  judgment  is  a  prejudice,  then  the  end  can  only  be  the  full  revealing  of 
the  beginning  "  (Marheinecke). 

6.  It  seems  more  logical  to  begin  our  investigation  with  the  history  of 
the   New  Testament ;  not  merely  because  this   is  for  Christians  of  the 
greatest  importance,  but  because  in  this  way,  at  the  same  time,  a  firm  stand- 
point is  gained  for  the  right  estimation  of  the  Old  Testament.     We  have 
in  this  investigation,  in  the  first  place,  to  do  with  the  personality  of  the 
sacred  narrators,  and  to  ask  who  and  what  they  were.    The  answer  to  these 
questions  is  in  a  high  degree  satisfactory.     Our  four  Canonical  Gospels  are 

1  Compare  B.  TER  HAAR,  Oratio  de  Rel.  Chr.  indole  historic^,  hodie  nimie  spreid,  Traj. 
ad  Rhen.',  1859. 

1  D.  F.  STRAUSS,  Leben  Jesu,  pop.  edn.  (1864),  p.  xiiL 


ITS  CHARACTER.  !g^ 

no  so-called  private  writings,  which  have  suddenly  made  their  appearance 
out  of  some  book-collection  or  another,  but  composed  by  well-known 
persons,  designed  at  once  for  public  use,  and  openly  read  in  circles  of  men 
who  were  familiar  with  the  main  contents  of  the  Gospels  as  handed  down 
by  oral  tradition.  The  writers  were  contemporaries  and  fr.ends  of  the 
Lord;  accurately  acquainted,  as  is  manifest  from  a  number  of  minute  traits, 
with  the  scene  they  describe,  and  the  course  of  events  ;  some  of  them  eye- 
and  ear-witnesses,  others  in  possession  of  important  documentary  evidence, 
for  tlu  sifting  of  which  they  were  fully  competent  and  qualified.4  We 
know  what  a  storm  of  voices  is  raised  against  this  statement,  but  we  know 
also  that  not  a  little  which  is  proclaimed,  apparently  without  prepossession, 
in  the  name  of  Criticism,  may  rather  be  called  the  fruit  of  well-directed 
Tactics,  the  real  object  of  which  cannot  be  doubtful  to  any  one.  It  is 
manifest  that  Dogmatics  has  no  small  interest  in  the  investigation 
still  proceeding  as  to  the  origin  and  relationship  of  the  accounts  given 
in  the  Gospels,  and  must  accept  on  its  side  what  in  this  domain  is  really 
proved.  Judging,  however,  by  the  light  of  history,  it  would  seem  Christian 
Dogmatics  may  await  the  future  with  some  degree  of  calmness,  the  more 
so  since  in  the  worst  case  it  can  afford  to  lose  something,  without  being 
deprived  of  that  which  is  indispensable  for  the  maintenance  of  its  essential 
contents.  These  would  always  be  safely  covered,  even  though  only  a 
single  one  of  the  Gospels  should  come  forth  unscathed  out  of  the  fiery 
ordeal  through  which  they  are  passing. 

If  we  inquire  further  of  what  kind  these  our  reporters  were,  a 
glance  at  their  intellect,  their  spirit,  and  life,  suffices  to  strengthen 
our  confidence.  Their  intellect — that  of  a  I  ,uke  or  a  Paul  for  instance — 
was  perfectly  competent  to  distinguish  truth  from  fiction,  and  yet  their 
genius  was  not  great  enough  to  invent  a  fiction  like  this.5  They  them- 
selves more  than  once  declare  that  they  did  not  understand  the  Lord,6 
but  in  this  very  way  make  manifest  how  objectively  and  faithfully 
they  relate  what  they  have  seen  and  heard.  Their  spirit,  as  it  reflects 
itself  in  their  writings,  was  upright,  truth-loving,  and  devout.  So  far  are 
they  removed  from  a  craving  after  the  miraculous,  that  they  leave  wholly 
unused  many  an  opportunity  for  embellishment,  which  a  romancer  would 
unquestionably  have  seized,  and  frequently  speak  of  miraculous  deeds  in 
pa3sing,  without  describing  them  as  we  should  have  expected.7  Frankly 
and  without  constraint  they  relate  also  facts  and  failures,  which  by  no 
means  redounded  to  the  credit  of  themselves  or  of  the  circle  to  which  they 
belonged.  Clearly  their  heart  is  filled  with  a  love  to  Jesus,  whereby  their 
spiritual  vision  is  strengthened  for  the  contemplation  of  His  greatness,  and 
His  words  and  deeds  are  indelibly  imprinted  on  their  memories.  Their  life, 
finally,  so  far  as  we  know  it,  produces  a  highly  favourable  moral  impression. 
With  the  sacrifice  of  honour,  advantage,  and  repose,  it  is  consecrated  wholly 
to  the  cause  of  truth,  and  is — in  the  case  of  not  a  few  of  them — sealed 
with  the  testimony  of  their  blood.  These  proofs,  we  admit,  are  by  no 
means  new,  but  just  as  little  is  the  gainsaying  of  unbelief;  and  what  is  ages 

4  Luke  i.  I — 4.  •  Mark  ix.  10  ;  John  xii.  16. 

4  Acts  iv.  i;.  '  Matt.  ix.  35  ;  John  ii.  23. 


1 88  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

old,  has  not  on  that  account  become  entirely  antiquated.  No  one  deserves 
the  name  of  unreasoning  or  credulous  who  attaches  importance  to  these 
proofs.  So  much  the  less  so  since  the  narratives  of  the  Gospels  them- 
selves, when  duly  examined,  both  as  regards  form  and  contents,  augment 
the  confidence  already  awakened.  For — 

7.  The  form  of  the  historic  accounts  of  the  New  Testament  is  cha- 
racterised frequently  by  a  simplicity,  which  almost  irresistibly  reminds  us 
of  tie  maxim:  "simplex  sigillum  •vert;"  by  an  exactness — d/c/njSeia,  comp. 
Luke  i.  3 — in  the  indicating  of  time,  place,  and  circumstances,  wnich  can 
be  explained  only  as  springing  from  the  consciousness  of  perfect  good 
faith,"  while  for  some  instances  of  this  kind  no  conceivable  ulterior  end  can 
be  assigned  ;    by  a  lifelike  character,  finally,  a  nairete  and  freshness  of  tone, 
which  must  either  be  the  fruit  of  life,  or  must  show  the  writers  such  con- 
summate  deceivers   as   to   be   less  objects  for  criticism  than  for   police 
surveillance.     "  There   are   no  reflections  on   the    history,   but   the  facts 
themselves  in  full  reality  before  us  ;  it  is  the  history  itself;  it  speaks  to  us, 
and  we  are  placed  in  the  midst  ot  this  great  history  "  (Luthardt). — And, 
as  concerns  the  contents,  it  is  true  these  differ  not  a  little  from  other  historic 
documents.      On  the  other  hand,  however,  we  cannot  but  at  once  observe 
that  we  find  ourselves  here — as  is  manifest  even  from  the   indisputable 
moral  impression  which  this  history  makes — upon  very  different  ground 
from  that  of  every-day  life  ;  upon  that  of  Sa:red  history,  the   history  of 
Salvation,  which  must  be  measured  by  a  much  higher  standard  than  that  of 
ordinary  life.     The  effacing  of  the  line  of  demarcation  between  Sacred  and 
profane,  between  the  ordinary  and  the  Supernatural,  with  which  Modern 
Theology  is  chargeable,  inevitably  renders  the  Gospel  history  not  merely  a 
fiction,  but  also  an  insoluble  enigma.     We  would  refer  the  reader  to  what 
has  been  before  said  on  the  question  of  miracles  (§  32,  i.  6)*     He  who 
occupies  a  Theistic  standpoint,  and  in  consequence  admits  the  possibility  of 
miracles,  can  hardly  deny  that  this  miraculous  history  breathes  an  exalted 
spirit  which  is  found  nowhere  else,  and  at  the  same  time  is  marked  by  a 
harmony  between  the   whole  and   the  parts,  which   bears   the   infallible 
stamp  of  inner  truthfulness.     Of  one  part,  at  Jeast,  which  manifestly  bears 
the  character  too  of  publicity,  the  fabrication  so  soon  after  the  supposed 
inducement   thereto,    may   be   called,  not    only   improbable,  but   utterly 
impossible.     Take  the  case  of  the  appearing  to  more  than  five  hundred 
brethren  at  once,  the  repeated  miracle  of  feeding  the  multitude,  the  day  of 
Pentecost  with  its  signs  and  results.     Even   the,  in  some  sense  varying, 
presentation  of  the  circumstances  of  the  same  event — of  the  resurrection  of 
the  Lord,  for  instance — is  an  argument  rather  in  favour  of  than  against  tlie 
veracity  of  these  accounts,  and  can,  even  in  the  most  unfavourable  case, 
only  render  one  or  other  of  the  circumstances  doubtful,  but  not  on  that 
account  render  the  whole  entirely  incredible. 

8.  Touching  the  words  of  the  Lord  as  recorded  in  the  Gospels,  it  must 
be  observed  that  while  it  is  true  their  credibility  as  to  the  letter  cannot  be 
raised  above  all  doubt — since  they  were  recorded  in  another  language  than 
that  in  which  they  were  uttered  by  Him — yet,  at  the  same  time,  there  is 

Compare,  for  example,  Luke  iii.  I,  2.  »  E.g..  John  li.  6 ;  xxi.  II. 


ITS  CHARACTER. 


i29 


every  ground  to  speak  of  an  essentially  faithful  preservation  of  them  as  to 
contents  and  tendency.  Not  to  speak  again  of  the  personality  of  the  sacred 
writers,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  how,  as  well  the  contents  as  the  form  of 
these  words  united  in  itself  everything  that  could  permanently  hold  its 
place  in  the  memory ;  how  they  were  frequently  most  intimately  associated 
with  deeds  or  events  of  which  the  impression  was  never  to  be  effaced ; 
how,  finally,  the  issue  served  not  merely  to  explain  and  confirm  them,  but 
also  to  stamp  them  more  deeply  upon  the  soul.  In  proportion  as  the 
reverence  of  the  Apostles  for  the  Master  was  more  deeply  rooted,  must  they 
certainly  have  felt  less  freedom  to  place  in  His  lips  anything  of  their  own  ; 
while  in  addition  to  this  the  constant  repetition  of  the  same  testimony  must 
the  more  easily  impart  to  it  a  stereotyped  character. 10 — However  much  that 
is  enigmatical  H  is  deeds  also  may  in  many  respects  display,  yet  greater  at  the 
same  time  is  the  number  of  traces  of  truth  and  of  genuineness  about  them. 
We  hear  how  even  His  enemies  render  an  undesigned  testimony  to  His  power 
of  working  miracles,11  while  His  friends  speak  of  it  as  of  things  generally 
acknowledged.12  Now  and  then  these  acts  present  something  strange — • 
e.g.,  the  interview  with  the  Syro-Phenician  mr  ther,  and  the  blasting  of  the 
barren  fig-tree — but  this  very  feature  renders  the  fabrication  of  such  an  ac- 
count only  the  more  improbable.  Ever  do  we  see  the  Lord,  in  relation  to 
miracles  also,  consistent  with  Himself,  even  when  He  refuses  to  perform 
them,  or  shrouds  them  in  the  veil  of  secrecy. — And  then,  finally,  as  far  as 
the  ei'ents  of  His  life  are  concerned,  they  are  assuredly  absolutely  incredible, 
if  we  see  in  Him  nothing  more  than  simply  a  child  of  Adam.  But  precisely 
this  compels  us  to  look  upon  this  history  in  the  light  of  His  own  utterances, 
and  to  take  into  account  the  impression  which  His  whole  personality 
awakens. — Then  again  there  falls  sufficient  light  upon  the  history  of  the 
Apostolic  age,  regarded  as  the  history  of  the  revelation  of  the  glorified 
Christ.  (Comp.  §  32,  i.  9.)  It  is  at  least  indisputable  that  the  credibility 
of  the  accounts  given  in  the  Acts  is  supported  by  a  number  of  valid 
grounds,  and  is  apparent  to  every  one  who  is  not  incurably  smitten  with 
Miraculophobia.  The  second  book  of  Luke  is  by  no  means  a  work  of  special 
pleading  ( Tendenz-schrift],  composed  with  the  particular  aim  of  reconciling,  by 
means  of  a  one-sided  combination  of  accounts,  in  great  part  invented,  the 
Paulinism  with  the  Petrinism  of  the  Early  Church ;  but  an  historic  document, 
drawn  partly  from  trustworthy  sources,  partly  from  personal  observation  of  the 
facts  there  related — which  is  confirmed  on  countless  points  by  the  Apostolic 
Epistles,  and  in  manifold  details  affords  the  most  surprising  indications  of 
strictest  accuracy.  As  well  the  so-called  Timothy-hypothesis,  as  the  Silas- 
hypothesis,  is  already  consigned  to  the  region  of  history.  The  proof  of 
Luke's  identity,  and  of  his  presence  in  many  of  the  scenes  described,  is  con- 
tinually manifest,  especially  in  the  second  half  of  the  book  ;  and  here  again 
comparison  with  the  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles  brings  forward  in  a 
striking  manner  the  value  of  the  Canonical  ones.  Taken  as  a  whole,  the 

10  Compare,  as  far  as  John  especially   is    concerned,  our  work,    Tin  Gospel  of  Jo'.:; 
[English  translation]. 

11  John  xi.  47;  Matt.  xv.  i  ;  xxvii.  42. 
18  Acts  ii.  22  ;  x.  38. 


190  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

two  writings  of  Luke  agree  as  well  together,  as  the  historic  testimony  of  the 
Synoptical  Gospels  is  supported  by  the  Gospel,  the  Epistles,  and  the 
Apocalypse  of  John. 

9.  For  these  reasons,  which  can  here  be  only  mentioned,  we  continue 
to  maintain  without  hesitation  the  trustworthiness  of  the  New  Testament 
history  generally,  while—  in  regard  to  each  particular  account — so  far  as 
is  needful  and  possible,  a  continued  investigation  must  be  made,  how  far, 
in  that  particular  case,  one  may  further  build  upon  the  basis  laid  down. 
It  is  true  we  do  not  deceive  ourselves  as  to  the  importance  to  be  attached 
to  this  mode  of  proof,  by  those  who  proceed  from  entirely  opposite  princi- 
ples.    Between  mathematical  and  historical  certainty  the  distance  is  suffi- 
ciently appreciable  to  leave  open  a  pretty  wide  field  for  doubt.      Even 
where  it  is  supported   by  valid  proofs   for  the  merely  natural  intellect, 
the    Extraordinary   increases   in   improbability  with  every   age    that   has 
passed  since  it  intervened ;  because  the  number  of  the  ordinary  facts  in 
contradiction   with   it    has   gone   on   steadily   increasing,    while,   on   the 
other  hand,    the  extraordinary  series   of  facts  is   evermore  retiring  into 
the  background.     This,  so  long  as  no  new  proofs  are  discovered,   is  but 
natural;    but,   on    the   other   hand,  we   have    need    to    be    emphatically 
reminded  that  there  exists  a  criticism  against  which  no   single   historic 
account  is  secure.     Is  there  one  fact  of  the  past  which  canr.ot  be  disputed 
with  the  appearance  of  reason,  by  one  who  once  for  all  is  resolved  to 
doubt  ?     Is  not  this  polemic  able  to  put  on  such  a  show  of  science,  as  to 
be  in  a  position  to  calculate  on  the  alliance  of  all  who  have  a  spiritual 
affinity?18     Yea,  is  there,  properly  speaking,  ever  anything  which  cannot 
be  contradicted  with  a  so-called  scientific  earnestness  ?    Have  there  been 
no  astronomers  who  were  Atheists?     No  philosophers  who  believed  not 
in  the  sacredness  of  duty?    AndJs  the   assertion   too   strong,  that   the 
attempt  would  be  made  even  to  deny  axioms,  if  only  some  critics  had  a 
preponderating  interest  in  doing  so  ?    The  question,   therefore,   reduces 
itself  to  this  :  not  whether  anything  is  doubted  in  earnest,  but  whether  it  is 
justly  doubted?  and  this,  after  all  that  has  been  said,  must  here  be  denied. 
He  who  "will  successfully  dispute  the  credibility  of  the  Gospel  history,  must  at 
least  prove  that  the.  legitimate  charges  against  it  exceed,  in  importance  and 
weight,  the  positive  grounds  in  its  favour.      Untie  now  this  proof  has  not  been 
given. 

10.  Much  more  difficult  than  the  defence  of  the  historic  credibility  of 
the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament,  is  that  of  the  documents  of  the  Old. 
Here  also  we  can  speak  of  the  parts,  only  after  the  true  standpoint  has  been 
gained  for  the  contemplation  of  the  whole.     In  the  case  of  the  documents 
of  the  kingdom  of  God,  no  less  than  of  the  book  of  naturt,  the  words  of 
Pliny  find  their  application  :  "  Natures  rerum  vis  atque  majestas  in  omnibus 
momcntis  fide  caret,  si  quis  modo paries  ejus  ac  non  tctum  complcctatttr  animo." 
For  the  truth  and  Divine  character  of  the  whole,  the  Christian  faith  has 
sufficient  guarantees,  (a)  in  the  unequivocal  and  well-established  testimony 

13  See  "The  Great  Fire  of  London,  freely  dealt  with  according  to  the  principles  of  Modern 
Rationalism"  a  German  article  in  PIPER'S  Levels  des  Glaubeiis  (1869),  p.  473  ancj 
following. 


ITS  CHARACTER.  191 

of  Jesus  and  the  Apostles;14  (&)  in  the  existence  and  rise  of  the  Christian 
Church,  which  could  spring  up  only  out  of  the  soil  of  Israelitism  ;  (t)  in  the 
religion,  the  character,  and  the  present  condition  of  the  people  of  Israel, 
who  are  comprehensible  only  as  the  chosen  people  to  whom  God  specially 
revealed  Himself;  (d]  in  the  testimony  of  profane  history,  which,  taken 
along  with  the  discoveries  of  later  times,  brings  out  in  many  respects  the 
accuracy  of  the  sacred  narrative.16 

Regarding  a  great  many  particulars,  questions  arise,  even  concerning 
the  origin  and  collection  of  the  Israelitish  documents,  in  the  treatment 
of  which  Dogmatics,  as  such,  naturally  can  take  no  part.  Upon  good 
grounds,  however,  may  it  concede  to  Moses,  as  the  earliest  historian 
of  his  nation,  a  higher  character  for  credibility  than  is  allowed  to  him 
by  the  miracle-dreading  criticism  of  the  Anti-supranaturalistic  school. 
That  he  was  able,  that  he  wished,  yea,  that  he  was  constrained,  to  speak 
the  truth  in  regard  to  those  things  which  he  had  himself  witnessed,  is 
equally  as  certain  as  that  it  must  be  possible  for  him  to  draw  from  trust- 
worthy sources  the  knowledge  of  what  had  before  happened.  Even  for  the 
credibility  of  the  essential  contents  of  the  first  eleven  chapters  of  Genesis, 
arguments  of  no  small  force  may  be  adduced  from  the  domain  of  historical, 
physical,  and  philosophical  science.16  The  later  writers  also  are  evidently 
well-instructed,  devout,  genuinely  Theocratic  men,  so  little  given  to  partiality 
that  they  relate  even  that  which  does  not  in  the  least  degree  redound  to  the 
credit  of  the  most  illustrious  names.  Sometimes  they  refer  the  reader  to 
the  sources  they  have  made  use  of,17  and  show  thereby,  at  least,  that  they 
dread  no  inquiry  or  investigation.  Not  seldom  here  also  is  the  one 
testimony  confirmed  and  supported  in  the  most  surprising  way  by  the 
other ;  as,  for  instance,  the  contents  of  the  historical  books  by  those  of  the 
poetical  and  prophetic  books.  Throughout,  the  form  of  the  earliest 
narratives  is  characterised  by  a  freshness,  a  simplicity,  and  a  naivete  which 
gives  one  as  it  were  to  taste  and  touch  the  reality ;  the  garb  of  the 
Chronicles  is  certainly  just  as  little  adapted,  as  the  nomenclature  of  the 
Genealogy,  to  a  romantic  or  legendary  narrative.  And,  as  concerns  the 
contents,  there  are,  above  all,  two  peculiarities  which,  in  our  estimation,  cast 
an  important  weight  into  the  scale  in  favour  of  their  credibility.  On  the 
one  hand,  the  trenchant  contrast  between  the  whole  spirit  of  this  history, 
and  the  obdurate  and  almost  incurable  natural  disposition  of  the  people. 
In  diametrical  opposition  to  that  which  we  elsewhere  meet  with,  for 
instance  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  here  the  natural  character  is  not 
flattered,  but  reproved,  opposed,  and  corrected,  in  a  way  which  can  be 
explained  only  as  arising  from  the  overpowering  influence  of  truth  and  of 
conscience.  And  then,  besides,  appears  the  wondrously  beautiful  unity  of 
plan  and  controlling  thought  in  this  history — a  unity  which  is  apparent  at 
every  turn,  and  even  in  the  minutest  particulars,  and  which  renders  it,  for 
us  at  least,  impossible  to  see  in  its  course  anything  else  than  a  gradual 

14  Matt.  xix.  4  —  6;  xxiii.  35  ;  I  Cor.  x.  I — II  ;  Heb.  xi ;  and  many  other  places. 
14  Compare,  for  instance,  J.  J.  VAN  OOSTERZEE,  Nineveh  en  de  H.  Schrift,  Rott.  (1855). 
16  Compare  P.  HOFSTEDE  DE  GROOT,  I'oorl.  over  de  opvoed.  des  MenschJ.,  i.  (1847),  pp. 
139,  s'/'j. ;  AUBERLEN,  Divine  Revelation,  i.  (1862),  pp.  174,  sqq.  [of  the  Dutch  edition.] 
>7  Josh.  x.  13  ;  I  Kings  xiv.  19. 


192  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

realisation  of  a  redemptive  thought  of  God  Himself.  Yea,  truly  "  at  many  a 
particular  I  am  again  and  again  perplexed ;  but  these  perplexities  again  are 
ever  triumphantly  overcome  by  the  power  of  the  whole.  Israel  alone  is, 
through  all  the  course  of  its  history,  progressive,  and  its  history  a  continual 
act  of  God  in  word,  calling,  miracles  "  (Gunning). 

1 1 .  He  who  has  in  this  way  gained  an  eye  for  the  whole,  is  not  on  that 
account  released  from  the  obligation  of  justifying  the  dogmatic  use  of  each 
part  of  this  history  against  the  manifold  opposition  which  is  heard  evermore 
loud  in  its  clamour  against  it.  Even  from  the  Supranaturalistic  standpoint, 
difficulties  will  present  themselves,  derived  partly  from  the  domain  of 
natural  science,  partly  from  that  of  profane  history  and  chronology,  partly 
from  the  philosophic  mode  of  thinking,  partly,  finally,  from  Christian 
Theology,  especially  its  Dogmatics  and  Ethics.  Even  the  enumerating, 
much  more  the  solution,  of  these  difficulties  lies  far  beyond  the  limits  of 
our  plan ;  therefore  this  little  only  by  way  of  putting  -on  a  ri-ht  track 
(orienteering]  on  this  fiercely  contested  ground.  Where  Natural  Philosophy 
awakens  doubts  as  to  many  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  history,  the 
Theologian  has  above  all  things  to  ask  whether  the  difficulty  is  derived  from 
that  which  is  already  universally  proved  to  the  conviction  of  all,  or  simply 
from  a  more  or  less  probable  hypothesis.  In  the  latter  case,  to  wait  is  the 
duty  of  prudent  science ;  in  the  former,  the  peculiar  standpoint  of  the 
sacred  writer  may  at  least,  among  other  things,  be  taken  into  considera- 
tion, and  the  same  freedom  be  allowed  to  his  scientific  views  as  faith  allows 
to  itself,  not  in  opposition  to,  but  side  by  side  with,  a  well-established  science. 
Only,  it  must  never  be  forgotten  that  the  Scripture  of  the  Old  Testament 
was  never  designed  to  answer  questions  which  could  be  answered  equally 
well,  or  better,  by  the  investigations  of  science  ;  but  to  enlighten  us  precisely 
upon  those  points  upon  which  the  latter  must,  and,  if  it  is  wise,  certainly 
will,  remain  silent  (comp.  §  xvi.  8). — Where  Sacred  and  Profane  History  and 
Chronology  contradict  each  other,  an  exact  and  impartial  comparison  of  all 
the  aata  will  have  to  determine  on  which  side  the  tnit  hlies,  and  then  certainly 
in  some  cases  many  a  one  will  defer  as  yet  his  final  decision.  More  than  one 
striking  example  of  palpable  errors  being  dished  up  as  truth,  in  a  lone  of 
high  authority,  by  assailants  of  the  Sacred  History,  impels  to  a  greater  degree 
of  cautiousness;  though  it  cannot  be  denied,  on  the  other  hand,  that  some- 
times on  the  side  of  its  defenders,  in  regard  to  highly  complicated  points 
of  controversy,  the  cry  of  victory  has  been  raised  too  soon.  Notably, 
Egyptology  affords  in  our  time  a  field  of  investigation,  of  which  the  issues, 
among  other  causes,  on  account  of  the  very  tendencies  and  results  of  its  most 
renowned  scholars,  cannot  even  be  approximately  computed.  In  the 
meantime  the  study  of  ancient  Egypt  has  already  contributed  not  a  little  to 
the  confirmation  of  the  earliest  history,  so  that  a  Bunsen  could  declare : 
"  The  account  of  Joseph  leads  us,  even  in  minute  particulars,  to  see  in  this 
tradition  an  historic  character  which  surpasses  all  the  expectations  of 
believers  in  the  Bible."  Where,  on  many  another  point,  the  desired 
harmony  is  for  the  present  wanting,  one  must  for  the  time  being  rest 
content  with  the  word  of  another  Egyptologist,  "  that  we  have  not  to  look 
in  the  Old  Testament  for  any  chronological  revelations  as  to  the  outward 
details  of  human  history  ;  but  only  for  the  history  of  God's  doings  among 


ITS  CHARACTER.  193 

men,  and  His  commandments,  as  they  have  been  proclaimed,  to  the  blessing 
of  the  nations,  by  the  mouth  of  the  Prophets  and  other  holy  men,  in  the 
mode  of  expression  natural  according  to  the  knowledge  of  that  time  " 
(Lepsius). — How  sometimes  a  chronological  difficulty  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, which  has  been  a  stone  of  stumbling,  may  be  removed  by  the  appli- 
cation of  textual  criticism,  is  apparent,  for  instance,  from  2  Sam.  xv.  7. 

That  a  philosophic  mode  of  thinking,  even  when  it  is  not  startled  at 
the  idea  of  a  miracle,  can  still  scarcely  reconcile  itself  to  some  of  the 
Old  Testament  accounts  of  miracles,  need  not  above  measure  disturb 
us.  The  great  question  still  remains,  whether  this  mode  of  thinking  pro- 
tests against  the  grand  fundamental  conception  from  which  the  Scripture 
narrative  proceeds,  or  merely  against  particular  details.  In  the  former 
case  we  can  hardly  come  to  an  understanding  with  our  opponents, 
since  here  there  is  a  conflict  of  principles;  in  the  latter,  not  seldom 
an  accurate  exegesis  and  thorough  criticism  will  suffice  to  remove  a 
stone  of  stumbling.18  When  the  philosopher,  on  his  side,  is  conscious  of 
the  rashness  of  a  stout  d  priori  negation,  and  the  Theologian  does  not 
lose  sight  of  the  distinction  between  the  demand  of  submission  to  God's 
Word  and  that  of  a  slavish  subjection  to  every  letter  of  Scripture,  then 
the  two  need  not  remain  divided  by  any  insuperable  distance. — Christian 
Theology,  finally,  must  never  forget  that  while  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
Testament  are  unquestionably  the  records  of  sacred  history,  they  record  a 
sacred  history  as  yet  by  no  means  in  its  highest  development.  The  better 
it  is  understood  that  here  are  preserved  revelations,  true  indeed,  but 
none  the  less  provisional  and  imperfect,  adapted  to  the  childlike  capacity 
of  a  long  forgotten  past,  the  less  will  Christian  Dogmatics  and  Ethics  rise 
against  this  part  of  the  history  with  an  inexorable  protest  on  the  lips.  He 
who  simply  does  not  lose  sight  of  the  difference  between  the  morning  dawn 
and  the  noonday  sun,  who  takes  into  consideration  the  difference  between 
Eastern  and  Western  ideas  and  customs,  and  who,  above  all,  is  mindful 
of  the  sound  advice  of  Augustine  :  "  Distingue  "tempora,  et  concordabit 
Scriptura^  will  judge  differently  of  many  particulars  in  themselves  strange, 
yea,  will  perhaps  find  in  difficult  places  of  the  Old  Testament  so  many 
more  proofs  of  its  hidden  glory.19 

12.  The  historic  character  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testament  is  for  Christian  Dogmatics  satisfactorily  maintained,  when — in 
opposition  to  every  renewed  assault — it  is  clearly  apparent  that  they  are 
the  sufficiently  trustworthy  documents  of  God's  Saving  Revelation  in  Christ, 
who  forms  their  centre.  Not  belief  in  the  Scriptures,  however  becoming 
this  also  is,  but  belief  in  the  Christ,  of  whom  the  Scriptures  testify,  is  still 
and  always  the  only  way  of  salvation.  How  high  a  value  we  with  the 
greatest  reason  attach  to  this  their  testimony  will  be  apparent  from  the 
investigation  now  to  be  instituted. 


18  Compare,  for  example,  CHRISTLIEB,  /.  c.  pp.  367 — 382,  the  chapter  on  Some  Serif' 
ture  Miracles  which  have  been  especially  assailed. 

19  See  the  Appendix  of  LANGE  in  his  Commentary  on  Genesis,  "  On  the  so  called  difficult 
places  of  the  0.'  T.,"  etc. 

O 


194  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

Compare  on  the  credibility  of  the  Gospel  history  in  general,  besides  the  well-known 
writings  of  LARDNER,  DA  COSTA,  and  others,  above  all,  A.  THOLUCK,  Glaulrjjurdigk. 
der  Ev.  Gesch.  (1838);  H.  J.  HOLTZMANN,  Die  Svnopt.  Evan.;.,  ihr  Ursprung  und 
eeschichtl.  Ckarakier  (1863)  ;  A.  EBRARD,  Wissenschaftl.  Kritik  der  Evang.  Gcschichte 
'[English  translation]. — On  that  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  J.  J.  VAN  OOSTERZEE'S  prize 
treatise  (Soc.  of  the  Hague,  1840);  LKCHLER,  Das  Afost.  und  nach-Ap.  Zeitalter, 
2nd  edn.  (1857)  ;  E.  DE  PRESSENSE,  UEcole  critique  et  les  Apotres,  against  Renan 
(1866) ;  C.  J.  TRIP,  Paulus  der  Ap.  des  Herrn,  nach  der  A.  G.  (Soc.  Hag.,  1867). — On 
the  Axiopistia  of  the  O.  T.  history,  KURTZ,  Histoiy  of  the  Old  Covenant  [English 
translation] ;  HENGSTENBERG,  Gesch.  d.  Reiches  Gottes  im  A.  B.,  i.  (1869),  pp.  30—58  ; 
P.  HOFSTEDE  DE  GROOT,  De  Godsd.  van  Israel,  etc.,  W.  in  L.,  1870,  p.  65  and 
following  ;  ¥.  GODET,  La  Saintet'e  de  fAtuien  Testament  (1869) ;  TRAUTMANN,  Das 
Evangd.  Schriftpriiuipi  und  die  Bibelkritik,  in  the  £eu<eis  des  Glaubens  (1872),  p.  I,  sqq. ; 
L.  FULLER,  Das  A.  T,,  der  Zweifel  und  dem  Anstoss  gegeniiber  (1870). 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

In  what  sense,  and  to  what  extent,  must  a' definite  historic  character  be  claimed  for  the 
Old  Testament  ? — To  what  extent  is  the  Christian  faith  dependent  or  not  on  the  results  ot 
historical  criticism? — Must  the  demonstration  of  the  fides  humana  of  Holy  Scripture 
precede  that  of  theyW^r  Divina,  or  follow  it? — Discussion  of  the  principal  object 'ons 
raised  by  modern  criticism  against  the  credibility  of  the  Gospel,  in  so  far  as  these  criticisms 
are  of  dogmatic  importance. — Of  those  raised  against  the  historic  accounts  in  the  Acts  and 
Epistles.— Against  those  of  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament. — Inseparable  con- 
nection between  the  maintenance  of  these  last  and  of  those  of  the  New  Testament. — What 
in  this  domain  may  be,  if  necessary,  safely  surrendered,  without  anything  essential  being 
ost  ? — What,  on  the  other  hand,  must  we  defend  and  hold  fast  with  all  our  might  ? 


SECTION   XXXIX.— ITS  INSPIRATION. 

The  recognition  of  the  trustworthiness  of  the  historical  testimony 
of  Holy  Scripture  justifies  at  the  same  time  the  belief  in  its  Divine 
origin,  confessed  by  the  Christian  Church  in  all  ages.  The  men  of 
God,  whose  word  is  preserved  to  us  in  the  books  of  the  Old  and 
the  New  Testament,  were  notably,  each  one  in  his  measure,  filled 
above  others  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  their  testimony  in  regard  to 
the  truths  of  salvation — those  recorded  in  their  writings,  not  less 
than  their  oral  utterances — thus  manifests  the  character  of  an 
infallible  testimony  of  God.  The  Theopneustia  of  Scripture  in  its 
totality  (Tpafyr)  OeoTrveva-ros,  2  Tim.  iii.  1 6)  is  the  natural  consequence 
of  this  higher  inspiration  and  guidance  of  the  Writer ;  and  must, 
while  we  reject  every  mechanical  theory,  be  so  conceived  of,  that 
full  justice  may.be  rendered  as  well  to  the  unmistakably  Divine  as 
to  the  truly  human  character  of  the  Bible,  and  that  the  two  con- 


ITS   INSPIRATION.  195 

ceptions  of  Holy  Scripture  and  Word  of  God  must  be  on  the 
one  hand  duly  distinguished ;  on  the  other,  presented  in  their 
higher  unity  and  their  proper  connection. 

The  transition  from  the  investigation  as  to  the  historical  character  of 
Holy  Scripture  to  that  as  to  its  Divine  origin,  must  not  be  made  without 
a  word  of  self-defence  in  regard  to  an  objection  frequently  repeated  and 
apparently  well  founded.  Where,  namely,  we  rest  the  doctrine  of  the 
Inspiration  of  Scripture  upon  that  of  its  historic  trustworthiness,  we  are 
accused  of  arguing  in  a  vicious  circle.  "  The  Scripture  utters  the  word 
of  God,  because  it  is  inspired ;  and  that  it  is  inspired,  you  prove  by  an 
appeal  to  the  Scripture."  It  is  even  so ;  and  how  could  it  possibly  be 
otherwise  ?  But  when  we  appeal  to  the  Scripture  itself  to  bring  into  full 
light  its  Theopneustia,  we  appeal  to  it  exclusively  as  a  trustworthy  historic 
document.  We  thus  reason  :  if  once  its  trustworthiness  is  established,  then 
also  the  words,  facts,  etc.,  with  which  we  shall  further  have  to  do,  are 
indisputably  true.  If  that  is  so,  then  we  ask  yet  further :  what  is  to  be 
legitimately  deduced  therefrom  in  regard  to  the  person  and  activity  of 
those  by  whom  the  Saving  Revelation  was  recorded  for  us  in  writing  ? 
Thus,  without  moving  in  a  circle,  we  ascend  gradually  from  the  credibility 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures  to  the  investigation  as  to  their  Divine  character. 
In  other  words,  we  put  the  questions :  Is  there  indeed  good  reason  for 
speaking,  in  regard  to  the  sacred  writers,  of  an  especial  enlightenment  and 
guidance  by  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  And  if  so,  what  conception  have  we  in  con- 
sequence to  form  to  ourselves  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Inspiration  of  Scrip- 
ture ?  It  is  here  consequently  a  question  of  well-established  historic  tes- 
timony and  of  accurate  dogmatic  distinctions,  in  order  that  not  only  the  that 
(the  fact)  but  also  the  how  (the  mode)  of  the  inspiration  may  be  brought 
into  a  clear  light. 

I.  i.  If  in  reviewing  the  series  of  Testimonies  which  are  with  justice 
adduced  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of  Theopneustia,  we  begin  with  the 
Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament,  then  above  all  things  the  testimony  of  the 
Lord  concerning  His  first  ambassadors  claims  our  attention.  Thus  much  is 
at  once  apparent,  that  He  not  only  places  His  Apostles  on  a  level  with, 
but  even  exalts  them  above,  the  Prophets  of  the  Old  Covenant.1  Ex 
traordinary  assistance  is  promised  them,  not  merely  when  they  have  to 
vindicate  their  cause,  which  is  that  of  the  truth,3  but  also,  in  general,  when 
they  arise  as  witnesses  of  the  Lord.3  Particularly  in  the  parting  discourses 
recorded  by  John,  He  gives  them  the  most  positive  promises  in  this 
respect. 4  The  Holy  Ghost  is  promised  them  to  lead  them  into  all  the 
truth, 5  and  thus  to  raise  them  in  their  preaching  above  all  danger  of 
error.  The  past  He  shall  bring  again  to  their  mind  :  in  relation  to  the  pre- 

1  Matt.  v.  12  ;  xi.  n  ;  John  xx.  21. 

•  Matt.  x.  19,  20. 

s  Luke  xxiv.  49  ;  Acts  i.  5. 

4  John  xiv.  16,  17,  26  ;  xv.  26  ;  xvi.  7—15. 

*  ets  Ti)t>  d\r)6eia.i>  irdffav,  John  xvi.  13. 

O  2 


196  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS.    . 

sent,  He  shall  teach  them  all  things  in  the  spiritual  domain,  and  shall  also 
enlighten  them  in  regard  to  the  future  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  This  pro- 
mise, symbolically  repeated  after  the  Lord's  resurrection,6  and  actually 
fulfilled  upon  the  day  of  Pentecost,  is  at  the  same  time  apparent  in  its 
effects,  from  the  great  change  in  the  outward  and  inner  life  of  the  Apostles, 
and  consequently  offers  a  trustworthy  point  of  commencement  for  our 
investigation. 

2.  The  testimony  of  the  Apostles  concerning  themselves  and  their  writings  is 
not  less  noteworthy.  We  naturally  include  among  these  Paul,  who — called 
later  by  Jesus  Himself — was  placed  on  an  equality  with  the  other  witnesses, 
and  enlightened  by  special  revelation.7  In  consequence  of  this  he  terms 
the  Gospel  which  he  preaches  the  Word  of  God,  and  asks  for  the  written 
word  the  same  reverence  which  he  claims  for  the  spoken.8  He  pronounces 
an  anathema  upon  any  one  who  should  proclaim  another  Gospel,9  and  not  for 
a  single  moment  does  he  doubt  his  right  to  enjoin  that  which  is  becoming.10 
He  allows  no  freedom  to  differ  from  his  precepts ;  but,  on  the  other  hand, 
expects  that  the  spiritual  man  will  recognise  therein  the  will  of  God,11 
while  he  ever  distinguishes  his  personal  opinions  from  that  which  he  has  to 
say  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.12  The  other  Apostles  also  are  conscious — at 
least  in  the  solemn  actions  belonging  to  their  office — of  writing  under  the 
guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost.13  Here  and  there,  there  would  seem  to  be 
present,  as  early  as  in  the  Apostolic  Epistles,  traces  of  the  ranking  of  the 
New  Testament  writings  upon  a  level  with  those  of  the  Old.14 

3.  Since  it  is  not  possible  to  reject  these  utterances  of  the  Apostolic 
self-consciousness  as  the  fruit  either  of  fanaticism  or  of  deception,  of  great 
importance  must  the  meaning  be  which  we  are  to  attach  to  the  testimony  of 
the  Lord  and  His  Apostles  to  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Covenant.  With  an 
appeal  to  that  which  is  written,  does  Jesus  Himself  enter  upon  the  great  work 
of  His  life,16  come  forth  at  His  first  proclamation,16  continually  afterwards 
proceed,  and  tread  the  path  leading  to  His  sufferings  and  His  glorifica- 
tion.17 That  the  Scripture  cannot  be  broken,  is  for  Him  irrevocably  certain,18 
and  not,  "  What  thinkest  thou?"  but,  "How  readest  thou?"  is  His  great 
question  to  the  lawyer.19  A  commandment  of  Moses  is  for  Him  a  command  of 
God  ; 20  ignorance  of  the  Scripture,  in  His  estimation,  the  source  of  the  most 
fatal  error ;  ^  yea,  no  means  of  deliverance  is  any  longer  possible  for  him 
who  rejects  its  testimony.22  Not  only  the  spirit,  but  even  the  letter  of 
Scripture,  is  for  Him  sacred,23  and  as  well  to  it  as  a  whole,24  as  to  its 
different  parts,26  does  He  render  unequivocal  testimony.26 — Nor  is  it,  again, 


8  John  xx.  22.  w  Luke  iv.  16 — 22. 

7  I  Cor.  ix.  I  ;  Gal.  i.  16.  "  Matt.  xxvi.  54  ;  Luke  xxii.  37 ;  xxiv.  27. 

«  2  Thess.  ii.  13—15.  18  John  x.  35. 

9  Gal.  i.  7,  8.  w  Luke  x.  26. 

10  Philem.  8.  »  Matt.  xv.  3,  4. 

11  I  Cor.  xiv.  37.  2I  Matt.  xxii.  29. 

12  I  Cor.  vii.  25,  40.  B  Luke  xvi.  29 — 31. 
"  Acts  xv.  28.  a  Luke  xvi.  17. 

14  i  Tim.  v.  1 8  ;  2  Pet.  iii.  1 6.  **  Matt,  xxiii.  35. 

14  Matt.  iv.  4.  K  Luke  xxiv.  44. 
28  Comp.  MERLE  D'AUBIGNE,  UAutorite  des  Ecritures,  etc.  (1850). 


ITS  INSPIRATION.  197 

otherwise  with  the  Apostles  :  the  words  of  the  Prophets  are  for  them  words 
of  God,27  and  without  any  reserve  they  base  their  proclamation  of  salvation 
upon  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  they  manifestly  regard  as 
the  fountain  and  test  of  the  highest  truth.  On  this  account  Paul  warns  his 
converts  against  being  wise  above  that  which  is  wr.tten,28  and  pays  in  a 
single  sentence  the  highest  tribute  both  to  Timothy  and  to  Holy  Scripture.29 
Not  less  distinctly  does  he,  in  the  last-named  place,  give  us  to  understand  that 
the  whole  Scripture  of  the  Old  Testament,  regarded  in  its  totality,  is  a 
writing  inspired  by  God,  and  precisely  on  this  account  of  many-sided  utility 
(Otbirv.  =  virb  6fov  ircirvv^vri,  divinitus  tnspirato).  If  he  here  indicates  this 
its  character  only  by  a  single  word,  our  conception  of  the  nature  of  this 
inspiration  is  in  some  measure  simplified  by  a  hint  given  in  the  (in  our 
opinion  genuine)  second  Epistle  of  Peter.80  He  makes  mention  there  of  a 
powerful  impulse  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  consequence  of  which  the  men  of 
God  speak ;  and  it  is  not  difficult  to  divine  in  what  light  he  desires  we 
should  regard  the  word  written  by  them.81 

4.  The  testimony  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  regarding  themselves 
is  in  entire  harmony  with  this  view.  The  prophets,  as  extraordinary 
spokesmen  of  God,  demand  obedience  to  their  words,  since  they  think, 
speak,  act,  and  also — where  necessary — write,  under  higher  direction. 
Frequently  there  was  added  a  Divine  command  to  do  so,8a  and  even 
where  this  is  not  said  in  so  many  words,  we  may  safely  assume  that,  in  an  age 
so  little  inclined  to  writing,  they  did  not  take  up  the  office  of  writer,  except 
in  obedience  to  a  higher  impulse  of  the  heart.  The  Spirit,  who  lived  in 
them  expressed  Himself  also  in  their  writings,  and  their  writings  consequently 
have  no  less  value  than  their  words.  Joshua  manifests  the  highest  rever- 
ence for  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses,  and  enjoins  this  also  upon  others.38 
David  finds  the  task  of  his  life  indicated  in  "the  volume  of  the  book;"34  and  for 
all  God-fearing  kings,  the  written  law  remains  the  "magna  charta"  of  the 
kingdom.35  Often  the  prophets  distinctly  refer  to  each  other's  oracles  as 
being  Divine  words ;  Daniel  consults  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah,  in  order  to 
trace  out  when  the  end  of  the  captivity  should  be.86  So  also,  in  the  other 
historical  and  moral  writings  of  the  Old  Testament,  we  discover  the  evident 
impress  of  the  religious,  moral,  and  Theocratic  spirit  of  their  age  :  and  when, 
finally,  the  Canon  was  closed  (§  36),  to  the  exclusion  of  other  writings, 
however  important  in  themselves,  we  hear  its  constituent  parts  spoken  of 
by  Josephus 37  as  Divine  writings,  from  which  no  one  might  take  away,  and 

27  Acts  ii.  17  ;  iv.  25. 

28  I  Cor.  iv.  6. 

^  2  Tim.  iii.  15,  16. 

*  2  Pet.  i.  20,  21. 

81  Comp.  C.  SEPP,  Onderzoek  naar  de  leer  des  N.  V.  aang.  de  H,  SS.  des  0.  V.  (1849), 
pp.  1 68,  sqq. 

33  Compare  Exod.  xxxiv.  27;  Deut.  xxxi.  19;  Isaiah  viii.  i;  xxx.  8;  Jer.  xxxvi.  2; 
Ezek.  xxiv.  2. 

83  Joshua  i.  8  ;  xxiv.  26. 

44  Psalm  xl.  7. 

35  Comp.  2  Kings  xxii.  8,  9. 

86  Dan.  ix.  2. 

*  Contra  Ap.  i.  8. 


198  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

to  which  no  one  might  add,  and  for  which  the  Jew  was  ready,  if  need  be, 
even  to  die.  A  mode  of  regarding  them  in  the  main  similar  to  this,  we 
have  already  found  in  the  Lord  and  His  Apostles. 

5.  If  we  inquire  as  to  the  testimony  of  the  Christian  Church  in  regard 
to  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  their  totality,  it  is  apparent  that  it  has  ever 
ascribed  to  them  a  sacred  character,  and  has  recognised  the  main  contents 
of  the  Bible  as  God's  own  Word.  Justin  Martyr38  regarded  it  as  incon- 
ceivable that  the  Sacred  Writers  should  have  penned  so  much  that  is  great 
and  glorious,  unless  the  Holy  Ghost  had — as  the  plectrum  from  the  lyre — 
drawn  forth  from  them  such  sweet  tones ;  and  in  a  like  spirit  others  also 
very  soon  expressed  themselves.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  at  first  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  were  much  more  frequently  cited  than 
those  of  the  New,  so  long  as  the  Canon  of  the  latter  was  yet  in  some 
measure  unsettled,  and  the  stream  of  tradition  was  copiously  flowing.  Yet 
there  are  not  wanting  proofs  of  the  high  value  at  once  attached  to  the 
Gospels  and  Epistles  of  the  New  Testament,  by  the  Apostolic  Fathers  and 
others,  who  appealed  by  preference  to  these  authorities.89  Thecphilus  *° 
comprises  the  writers  of  the  Old  and  of  the  New  Testament,  without  any 
limitation,  under  the  one  name  of  nvev/j.a.To<f>opoi.  Gradually  we  now  hear 
the  dogma  of  their  absolute  infallibility  more  nearly  denned  by  Irenaeus, 
Eusebius,  Augustine,  and  others ;  and  the  words  of  the  last-named  writer, 
"  Nullum  eorum  auctorum  scribendo  aliquid  errdsse,  firmissime  credam"  may 
be  regarded  as  the  expression  of  the  prevailing  view.  Later  we  meet 
alternately  with  a  more  rigid  and  a  more  elastic  theory  with  regard  to  them  ; 
but  by  no  one  is  the  Inspiration  itself  denied  or  disputed.  After  the 
Reformation — consistently  with  the  whole  system  of  the  Reformed  Church 
— the  defence  of  this  doctrine  was  undertaken  with  the  greatest  zeal. 
While  we  find  in  Luther  many  an  expression  in  which  it  is  taught  in 
more  free  terms,  Calvin,  especially,  emphatically  proclaimed  that  the 
whole  of  Holy  Scripture  had  no  less  an  author  than  God  Himself,  appealing 
for  confirmation  of  his  assertion  to  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Ghost.41  As 
opposed  to  the  more  lax  view  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  on  the  one 
hand,  and  of  the  Arminians  and  Socinians  on  the  other,  orthodox  Dogmatics 
defended  the  doctrine  of  the  Theopneustia  as  its  most  precious  palladium. 
By  the  Scholasticism  of  the  seventeenth  century  it  was  defined  and 
maintained  (§  xxxvi.  2)  in  a  way  which  could  not  fail  to  call  forth  mani- 
fold opposition,  although  as  late  as  our  own  day  this  view — especially  in 
French  Switzerland — has,  at  least  to  a  certain  extent,  found  able  champions 
(Gaussen,  De  Gasparin,  and  others).  It  is  now  pretty  generally  acknow- 
ledged that  the  mechanical  form,  in  which — under  the  influence  of  a  one- 
sided doctrinalism — the  doctrine  has  hitherto  been  commonly  presented, 
stands  in  absolute  need  of  revisal ;  but,  just  as  much,  that  the  treasure 
must  not  be  rejected  on  account  of  the  frailty  of  the  earthen  vessels,  in 

88  Cohort,  ad  Gr.,  cap.  8. 

;9  See,  e.g.,  the  Epistle  of  Clem.  Rom.,  ad  Corinth.,  cap  47  ;  and  the  Ep.  of  Barnab.,. 
cap.  4,  in  fine.    Comp.  TISCHENDORF,  When  -were  our  Gospels  written?    [ling,  ed.] 

40  Ad  Autol.,  anno  170 — 180. 

41  Inslit.  Rel.  Chr.,  \.  ^,  4. 


ITS   INSPIRATION.  199 

which  to  this  day  it  is  borne.  In  the  midst  of  much  wavering  and  opposi- 
tion, there  have  by  no  means  been  wanting,  even  in  recent  times,  efforts  to 
place  in  a  more  satisfactory  light  the  Divine  origin  of  the  Scripture,  in  con- 
nection with  the  idea  of  Revelation,  and  these  efforts  cannot  cease  to  be  made. 
Yea,  the  ivhole  series  of  testimonies  received  is  in  a  peculiar  manni  r  supported 
by  the  wholly  unique  impression  produced  by  the  Bible  itself  upon  every  suscepti- 
ble spirit,  an  impression,  from  the  influence  of  ivhich  even  professed  unbelievers 
have  not  always  been  able  to  withdraw  themselves.  He  who  will  acknowledge 
in  Holy  Scripture  no  higher  than  a  purely  human  character,  comes  into 
collision,  not  only  with  the  Lord's  own  word  and  that  of  His  witnesses,  but 
also  with  the  Christian  consciousness  of  all  ages,  and  is  thereby  placed 
entirely  out  of  a  position  to  explain  in  a  satisfactory  manner  the  inimitable 
dignity  and  powerful  influence  of  this  book.42  Here  consequently  it  is 
more  a  question  of  accurate  definition  than  of  the  broader  upholding  of  a 
fact,  which  in  itself — considered  as  an  indefinite  generality — could  scarcely 
by  any  possibility  be  gainsaid. 

II.  In  speaking  of  the  How,  in  regard  to  Inspiration,  there  is  naturally 
presupposed  belief  in  a  personal  God,  and  in  a  special  Revelation,  of  which 
the  Holy  Scriptures  are  the  repository.  Nevertheless,  even  where  this 
belief  is  present,  the  matter  yet  retains  its  darker  side.  It  is  impossible, 
after  the  course  which  the  investigation  on  this  point  has  taken  since  the 
seventeenth  century,  to  rest  content  with  the  little  which  the  Church 
Confession  has  definitely  expressed  on  this  point,43  however  convenient 
this  might  otherwise  appear.  Only  too  frequently  has  even  the  science  of 
faith  contented  itself  either  with  presupposing  or  with  stating  the  fact  of 
Inspiration — (or  Theopneustia) — instead  of  bringing  the  form  in  which  this 
fact  is  to  be  conceived  to  the  greatest  possible  degree  of  clearness  and 
certainty.  We  venture  upon  the  endeavour  to  give  an  account  of  our 
opinion  in  a  few  propositions. 

1.  The   Thcopncustia  which  must  be  attributed  to  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  Covenant  (2  Tim.  iii.   16),  and,   by  a  legitimate  deduction,  also  to  those 
of  the  New,  is  the  natural  consequence  of  the  Theopneustia  of  the  writers ;  and 
not  the  converse.     The  Holy  Scriptures  were  of  gradual  formation,  and  have 
lived  in  the  mind  and  heart  of  their  several  authors  before  they  came  into 
the  hands  of  their  contemporaries  and  of  posterity.     We  must  thus  not 
descend  from  the  Scripture  to  the  writers,  but  ascend  from  the  writers  to 
the  Scripture.     Theopneustia — i.e.,   guidance  and  animation  by  the  Holy 
Ghost — is  no  attribute  of  a  book  in  itself,  but  of  men ;  and  solely  in  con- 
sequence of  this,  also  of  their  words  and  writings. 

2 .  This  their  Theopneustia  must  be  conceived  of,  not  as  having  an  external- 
mechanical,  but  as  having  an  inward-dynamical  character.      He  who,    in 
connection   with  the  word  Theopneustia,  at  once  thinks  of  a  book,  can 
scarcely  conceive  of  the  mr.tter  itself  in  any  other  light  than  that  Qi&dictamen 
(lesson  dictated).     He  who,  on  the  other  hand,  comprehends  that  he  has 
here  to  do  with  a  working  of  God  in  and  upon  man,  will  at  the  same  time 

42  Comp.  G.  F.  N.  SONNTAG,  Doctrina  Inspir.  ejusque  ratio,  historia,  et  usus  pop. 
Heidelb.  (1810). 
48  Art.  iii.  of  the  Netherlands'  Confession. 


200  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

perceive  that  this  working  must  be  in  harmony  with  the  demands  of 
personality.  It  is  no  blind  impelling  force,  consequently,  but  'a  heavenly 
influence  exerted  upon  the  writers,  whereby  they  are  guided  and  strengthened 
for  self-activity.  This  operation  of  God  has  its  metaphysical  ground  in 
the  personality  and  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  its  psychological  ground  in, 
the  receptivity  and  individuality  of  the  men  of  God  ;  its  historic  ground, 
finally,  in  the  fact  that  it  takes  place  amongst  the  people  of  Israel — a 
people  destined  to  be,  and  who  really  became,  a  people  of  revelation  in 
the  special  sense  of  the  word ;  and  in  the  Christian  Church,  which  had  its 
beginning  in  the  Holy  Ghost  Himself.  Take  away  this  historic  condition, 
and  the  arising  of  a  succession  of  men,  enlightened  and  animated  by  God, 
is  entirely  inexplicable  (unvermittdt) ;  let  it  have  its  due  weight,  and  the 
starting-point  is  found  for  coming  to  the  idea  of  Theopneustia.  For 
indeed — 

3.  Theopneustia  and  Revelation,  although   not  identical,  are  nevertheless 
most  intimatelv  connected.     We  may  think  of  Revelation  in  the  twofold  sense 
of  the  word — patefactio  and  revelatio — without  its  being  accompanied  with 
an  actual  inspiration  for  speaking  or  writing ;  but  we  cannot  possibly  think 
of  Inspiration,  unless  an  objective  as  well  as  a  subjective  revelation  has 
taken  place.     To  the  Revelation  the  Inspiration  naturally  attaches  itself :  it 
is  the  expression  and  consequence  of  that  which,  by  way  of  Revelation, 
is   made  clear  and  certain  to  the  innermost  consciousness,  and  is  now 
perpetuated  in   word   and   writing.      To  this  extent  the  doctrine  of  the 
Theopneustia  would  perhaps   be  more  suitably  treated  of  in  dealing  with 
the  subject  of  Apocalyptics,  than  in  that  of  Bibliology.     Nevertheless  the 
distinction  ever  remains,    that    Revelation  was    the  privilege  of  all   true 
believers  :  Inspiration,  that  of  those  who  were  called  by  word  and  writing 
to  give  testimony  concerning  the  truth. 

4.  The  Sacred  Writers  wtre  in  an  especial  manner— rbut  at  the  same  time 
in  different  degrees — organs  of  the  Holy  Spirit.     Without  doubt,  the  Spirit 
wrought,  as  on  the  devout  in  Israel,  so  also  in  all  the  living  members  of  the 
Church  of  the  Lord.     In  this  respect   there   was   certainly   no  essential 
difference  between  them  and  the  Lord's  first  witnesses.44      But  there  is  a 
diversity  of  gift  and  work ;  and   to  each  one  the  Spirit  is  given  for  that 
which  is   profitable.45      To   the    Apostolic  office  belonged    naturally   the 
Apostolic  gifts :  with  the  special  call  to  write,  was  given  also  the  special 
guidance  and  qualification  for  the  work.     Everything  is  a  charisma  in  the 
spiritual  domain,  yet  in  this  case  there  is  found  a  difference — not  specific 
indeed,  but  of  decree — in   the    communications  of  grace.      Hence,  the 
churches,    although   themselves    led   by    the    Holy    Spirit,    nevertheless 
acknowledge  the  superiority  of  the  Apostles'  word,  and  continue  so  to  do, 
even  when  they  receive  it  in  a  written  form.46 

So  the  Sacred  Writers  have  the  Holy  Ghost  in  an  especial  measure,  but 
still  in  a  differing  degree.  With  the  fullest  justice  have  both  Jewish  and  Chris- 
tian Theologians  spoken  of  different  degrees  of  Inspiration,  and  made  a 

44  John  vii.  39  ;  Acts  xv.  8,  9 ;  Ephes.  iv.  4. 

45  irpbs  Tb  ffvfj.(f>€pov,  i  Cor.  xii.  4.  7,  II. 
*•  Acts  xv.  30 ;  xvi.  4 ;  2  Cor.  xiii.  10. 


ITS  INSPIRATION.  2OI 

distinction  which  has  in  later  times  been  not  without  loss  overlooked.  This 
distinction  is  such  as  we  might  a  priori  expect  to  see  made,  from  reasons 
derived  from  Divine  Providence  and  human  nature,  and  upon  a  careful 
examination  its  justice  is  apparent  from  almost  every  page  of  Scripture. 
Who,  for  instance,  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament,  will  ascribe 
the  same  fulness  of  the  Spirit  to  Judas,  the  Lord's  brother,  as  to  John,  His 
bosom  friend  ?  Who  does  not  feel,  in  those  of  the  Old,  the  distance  in  a 
spiritual  sense  between  a  Moses,  a  David,  an  Isaiah,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
the  writer  of  Ecclesiastes,  or  of  the  book  of  Esther,  on  the  other  ?  Here 
also,  as  everywhere  in  the  domain  of  God's  works,  the  words  of  i  Cor. 
xv.  41  find  their  application.  For — 

5.  The  Thcopneustia  of  the  Sacred  Writers  was  not  to  the  detriment,  but  to 
the  benefit,  of  their  individuality.     It  is  precisely  through  the  overlooking  of 
this  great  principle  that  misconception  and  aversion  have  arisen.     Conceive 
of  a  psalm  like  the  forty-second,  a  prophecy  like  that  of  Isaiah  xl.,  or  a  glory- 
ing in  the  faith  like  that  of  Rom.  viii.,  as  merely  dictated,  or  as  having  greater 
beauty  than  other  places,  simply  because  the   Holy  Ghost  wished  to  show 
that  He,  when  it  pleased  Him,  could  also  sometimes  be  eloquent.    Wherefore 
then,  it  might  be  asked,  not  more  frequently,  not  everywhere,  not  always  ? 
The  answer  lies  in  the  principle  enunciated.     The  Holy  Spirit  nowhere,  not 
even  in  this  domain,  tails  to  regard  the  rights  of  an  individuality,  which  has 
its  basis  in  the  will  of  God ;  on  the  other  hand,  He  fills  up,  develops, 
glorifies  this  individuality,  as  from  step  to  step.   Slumbering  powers  are  called 
forth  into  activity  under  the  light  of  the  new  sun  of  Reve.ation,  since  God 
makes    of   its  interpreters,   not   instruments,    but    master-builders   under 
Himself;  and  communicates  to  them  His  word  and  plan  of  salvation,  for 
themselves  and  others,  but  makes  this  communication  through  the  channel 
of  their  own  human  heart.     Each  one  speaks  his  own  language,  not  because 
the  Holy  Spirit  adapts  Himself  to  the  man's  style  of  language,  but  because 
the  Spirit  takes  possession  of  him,  and  uses  him  as,  according  to  the  nature 
of  his  sanctified  personality,  he  actually  is. 

6.  The  Theopntustia  of  the  sacred  Writers  must  generally  be  conceived  of,  not 
as  a  momentary  assistance,  exclusively  in  or  during  the  act  of  writing;  but  as 
a  natural  consequence  of  their  being  personally  ltd  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  who 
controlled  all  their  thinking  and  working,  and  in  this  way  also  their  writing. 
This  was  especially  the  dark  side   of  the  old   theory,  even  in   its   later 
supranaturalistic  modification.     The  Sacred  Writers  were  conceived  of  as 
having   become  wholly   different  beings   as  soon  as  a  Divine   "Write" 
sounded  in  their  ears.     The  impulse  itself  was  something  entirely  extraor- 
dinary ;  in  an  equally  extraordinary  way  was  the  matter,  no  less  than  the 
words,  supplied  ;  in  addition  to  this  there  was  given  occasionally,  to  mind 
and  feelings,   a  " dircctio  ad  mcntem  Sp.  S.  rite  exprimendam"     Where  is 
there  a  trace  of  all  this  ?  Yea,  to  what  end  would  it  be  called  for,  in  the  case 
of  true  men  of  God?    A  command  like  that  of  Rev.  i.  19,  was,  so  far  as  we 
know,  not  the  rule ;  and  what  Christian  psychologist  can  conceive  of  the 
Spirit  acting  merely  externally  and  momentarily,  at  the  time  when  the  man 
must  write,  and  departing  when  he  was  to  cease?    In  undisguised  opposi- 
tion to  this  mechanical  theory,  we  have  to  conceive  of  Inspiration,  not 
otherwise  than  as  the  most  intensive  penetration  of  the  whole  personality  by 


202  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

the  Holy  Spirit ;  in  consequence  of  which  the  writing,  as  well  as  speaking, 
of  the  men  of  God  was,  as  an  important  part  of  their  living  and  acting, 
Divinely  controlled ;  "  an  operating  upon  them,  not  simply  with  regard  to 
and  in  the  act  of  writing,  but,  on  the  contrary,  one  extending  in  its  effects 
even  to  \usque  ad}  their  writing." 

7.  As    Theopneus:ia  had  different  grades,  so  also  had  it  its  own  limits. 
This  too  has  been  forgotten,  where  the  holy  men  have  been  conceived  of 
as  omniscient,  at  least  as  infallible  in  every  respect.     "  II  nous  faut  sujfire 
qu'un  chapitre  on  une  chose  fasse  par  tie  ties  Ecritures  pour  la  croire  divintment 
bonne ;  car  Dieu  aprononce  sur  elle,  comme  sur  la  creation:  J'ai  vu  tout  ce  que 
j'ai  fait,  et  voila  tout  etait  bon  "  (Gaussen).     Few  things  perhaps  have  been 
more  prejudicial  to  the  existence  of  a  rational  belief  in  Scripture,  than  such 
an   assertion,   which    conflicts  with  the  n.ost  indisputable  facts.     In  this 
hypothesis  of  an  absolutely  unlimited  inspiration,  the  Sacred  Writers  at  last 
cease  to  be  men ;  and  a  number  of  contradictions,  not  merely  apparent,  but 
real,  presenting  themselves   in   Scripture,    can   only   be  removed  by  an 
almost  desperate  mode  of  harmonizing.   It  is  an  important  step  in  advance, 
that  even  the  most  believing  Scripture  expositors  of  our  age  candidly  con- 
fess they  are  not  able  to  maintain  the  absolute  infallibility  of  the  Sacred 
Writers,  in  every  particular.     Augustine,  indeed,  declared  long  before,  in 
regard  to  John  :  Nee  ipse  dixit  ut  est,  sed  ut  potuit,  quia  de  Deo  homo  dixit ; 
et  quidem  inspiratus  a  Deo,  sed  tamen  homo.     "  Nor  did  he  speak  of  things 
as  they  are,  but  as  he  was  able  to  express  them,  because  as  a  man  he 
spake  of  God ;  and  that  indeed  as  being  inspired  by  God,  but  yet  as  a 
man."     This  is  the  only  tenable  theory  of  limited  Inspiration  :  necessarily 
limited  by  the  finite  condition,  and  at  the  same  time  by  the  fallibility  of  man 
in  regard  to  all  which  belonged  not  to  the  sphere  of  God's  Saving  Revelation. 
—  Or,  have  all  the  expectations  of  the  Prophets  and  Apostles  received  the 
fulfilment  in  the  precise  form  in  which  they  had  conceived  of  them  ?    Is  it 
wise  to  ask  what  kind  of  Scripture  would  seem  to  us  most  useful  and  de- 
sirable, and  not  rather  what  kind  we  really  have  ?    Is  it  necessary  to  allow 
our  ideas  to  be  governed  by  the  deductions  of  Scholasticism,  in  place  of 
investigating  the  sense  in  which  the  Scripture  itself  declares  and  reveals  its 
Inspiration  ?     He  who  rejects  a  truly  rational  theory,  based  on  the  teaching 
of  Scripture  itself,   renders   thereby   simply   one   service   the   more   to — • 
Rationalism. 

8.  The  Theopneustia  proceeded  gradually  (John  xvi.  13).     This  also  has 
formerly  been  only  too  often  overlooked.     It  was  as  though  the  men  of 
God  must  have  an  insight  into  all  things  at  once,  and  rose  straightway  to 
the  full  height  of  their  spiritual  development.     Yet  the  contrary  is  clearly 
evident  on   psychological   and    historic  grounds,  e.g.,   from  an   attentive 
regard  to  the  Peirine  Christology,  or  the  Pauline  Eschatology.     Inspira- 
tion consequently  takes  place  only  in  harmony  with  the  law  of  all  develop- 
ment in  spiritual  life,  and  with  that  which  we  observe  everywhere  in  the 
domain  of  general  or  of  particular  revelation. 

9.  The  Theopneustia  extends  not  only  to  great  things,  but  also  to  things  of 
comparatively  minor  importance.     This  follows  as  a  simple  consequence 
from  the  foregoing  proposition.     So  long  as  one  entertains  the  mechanical 
view,  and  at  the  same  time  strives  after  a  reasonable  conception,  one  will 


ITS   INSPIRATION.  203 

necessarily  shrink  from  extending  this  to  the  apparently  insignificant  details 
— salutations,  for  example — personal  concerns,  etc.  Regarded  from  our 
standpoint,  this  difficulty  vanishes,  and  the  division,  almost  impossible  to 
make,  between  the  more  and  the  less  important,  is  unnecessary.  If  the 
Apostles  were  indeed,  in  all  their  thinking  and  acting — and  thus  also  in 
their  writing — under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  whom  they  were 
daily  more  deeply  penetrated,  it  may  be  asserted  in  a  sense  perfectly  justi- 
fiable, that  the  Holy  Spirit  also  inspired  them  in  regard  to  those  things 
which  are  comparatively  small.  The  fulness  of  the  Spirit  of  faith  expresses 
itself  in  Paul,  when  he  defends  the  resurrection  from  the  dead,  but  also 
the  tenderness  of  the  Spirit  of  love,  when  he  counsels  his  Timothy  to  add 
a  little  wine  to  his  water. 

10.  In  like  manner,  the  Theopneustia  has  reference,  not  only  to  the  things 
taught,  but  also  to  the -words,  yea,  to  the  whole  style  of  speech,  in  Holy  Scripture. 
"  To  wish  to  maintain  the  inspiration  of  the  subject-matter  without  that  of 
the  words,  is  a  folly  ;  for  everywhere  are  thoughts  and  words  inseparable  " 
(Rothe).  The  reluctance  of  the  earlier  Supranaturalism  to  think  of  an 
Inspiration  of  the  words,  as  well  as  that  of  the  things  taught,  arose  from  the 
fact  that  the  opinion  of  that  day  had  not  yet  broken  with  the  mechanical 
theory.  Yet  it  is  evident,  upon  a  little  reflection,  that  we  must  either 
accept  or  reject  both  alike,  since  form  and  contents  cannot — least  of  all  in 
this  domain — be  separated  from  each  other.  And  we  dare  to  accept  both, 
without  fearing  the  reproach  of  entertaining  a  view  opposed  to  sound 
reason.  If  the  Holy  Spirit  was  the  guiding  principle  in  the  Apostolic  life, 
His  influence  must  be  manifest  not  only  in  the  choice  and  presentation  of 
the  facts,  but  also  in  that  of  the  words.  If  the  true  poetic  spirit  enables 
one  to  seize  at  once,  and  as  by  intuition,  the  exact  and  only  suitable  word 
for  that  which  one  desires  to  express,  how  much  more  shall  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  ?  Not  even  the  Archaisms,  Solecisms,  or  other  peculiarities 
which  may  present  themselves,  need  prevent  our  seeing  in  the  language  of 
Holy  Scripture  a  creation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  no  lan- 
guage-master in  the  vulgar  sense  of  the  word,  any  more  than  the  exponent 
of  His  mind  was  an  automaton  or  a  flute.  It  is  thus  conceivable  that  the 
latter  expressed  himself  in  words  which  the  Holy  Ghost  taught,47  and  yet 
that  they  none  the  less  bore  the  traces  of  his  human  imperfection.48  That 
nevertheless  the  language  of  Scripture  is  a  language  of  Divine  majesty,  no 
one  will  deny  who  possesses  a  truly  spiritual  ear.  Compared  with  profane 
literature,  the  sacred  books  display  an  equally  peculiar  physiognomy  as  the 
Revelation  itself,  compared  with  the  ordinary  course  of  the  world's  history. 

1 1.  The  Theopneustia  of  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testament  bears  a  character 
more  or  less  different  from  that  of  the  writers  of  the  Nav.  This  also  has  not 
at  all  times  been  taken  into  account,49  and  yet  this  position  is  justified  by 
the  authority  of  Holy  Scripture  itself.  Clearly  there  was  an  immense 
difference  between  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  before  the  exaltation 
of  Christ,  and  that  afterwards,60  and  the  least  Apostle  had  a  higher  standing 

47  i  Cor.  ii.  13. 

48  2  Cor.  iv.  7  ;  x.  IO. 

48  See,  for  example,  A.  DE  GASPARIN,  L'Ecole  du  doute,  etc.  (1852),  p.  220. 
50  John  vii.  39. 


2O4  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

than  the  greatest  Prophet.51  While  the  Holy  Spirit  came  instantaneously, 
and  often  with  irresistible  power,  upon  the  Prophets,  He  dwelt  and  wrought 
more  regularly  and  constantly  in  the  Apostles  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
personality  of  the  latter  also  is  not  less  strongly  manifest — especially  in 
their  writings — than  that  of  the  former,  and  the  second  half  of  the  Bible 
displays  a  greater  fulness  of  the  Spirit  (plerophorid],  than  the  former.  If 
there  are  among  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testament  some  who  speak  or  write 
in  a  time  of  deep  apostasy  and  spiritual  barrenness,  we  cannot  look  in  them 
for  that  which  is  found  in  the  springtide  of  the  religious  life.  It  is  true 
there  breathes  a  genuinely  Theocratic  spirit  in  Israels  prophets  and  poets, 
but  not  without  coming  into  manifold  contact  with  their  special  human 
peculiarity.  Much  more  loud  and  clear  is  the  voice  of  the  Spirit  heard  in 
one  note  of  the  Psalms  than  in  the  other.62  Here  the  higher  aspiration 
rises  to  its  climax,  there  it  is  visibly  on  the  decline.53  In  the  Prophets  the 
Spirit  as  a  rule  points  forward,  in  the  Apostles  and  their  fellow-witnesses 
He  as  a  rule  points  backward ;  although  in  both  He  speaks  according  to 
the  requirements  of  the  moment. 

12.  The  question  as  to  the  Canonicity  of  the  books  of  Holy  Scripture  is  to 
be  clearly  distinguished  from  that  as  to  their  Theopneustia.     While  formerly 
both  ideas  were,  as  by  tacit  consent,  regarded  as  almost  identical,  or  as  at 
least  in  all  respects  interchangeable,  this  at  the  present  standpoint  of  the 
science  can  no  longer  be  justified.     We  must  and  can  allow  it  to  be  pos- 
sible that  a  writing  of  an  inspired  person  has  been  lost,54  and  regard  it  as 
equally  conceivable  that,  on  the  other  hand,  a  writing  may  have  been  re- 
ceived into  the  Canon  which  reveals  but  few  or  no  signs  of  the  inspiration 
of  the  writer.55     Nothing  can  here  be  decided  a  priori :  it  may  be  that  a 
careful  historico-critical  investigation  will  triumphantly  vindicate  the  right 
of  each  book  of  the  Bible  to  its  place  in  the  Canon  ;  but  the  position  that 
the   ideas  of  Canonicity  and   Theopneustia  mutually  cover   each   other, 
may  in  no  case  be  the  starting-point   for  this  investigation.     Why  not? 
The  history  of  the  Canon  has  already  sufficiently  answered  this  question. 

13.  With  the  observation  of  these  main  outlines  we  believe  that  a  more 
accurate  conception  of  the  doctrine — nay,  of  the  fact — cf  Inspiration  is 
not  unattainable,  and  consider  we  shall  be  gainers  in  every  respect  thereby. 
At  least,  Holy  Scripture  does  not  present  a  single  feature  irreconcilably  anta- 
gonistic to  a  conception  thus  formulated  as  to  the  Theopneustia  of  its  Authors. 
It  has  been  said  (a)  that  the  sacred  writers  do  not  speak  of  their  inspira- 
tion, and,  on  the  other  hand,  now  and  then  make  reference  to  their  authori- 
ties (Luke  i.  i — 4).  Just  as  though  to  be  silent  were  here  the  same  thing  as 
to  deny,  and  such  a  guidance  by  the  Holy  Spirit  as  we  have  indicated  for- 
bade the  use  of  trustworthy  documents  !     As  though  the  sacred  writers  do 
not  make  manifest  their  inspiration,  and  would  not  have  called  forth  a  well- 
merited  distrust,  had  they  testified  of  it  in  so  many  words  !    (John  viii.  13.) 


51  Matt.  xi.  ii. 

w  Comp.  e.g.  Ps.  xlii.  I,  with  Ps.  cxxxvii.  8,  9. 

43  Comp.  Jer.  xxxi.  27 — 34,  with  chap.  xx.  14,  15. 

M  i  Cor.  v.  9. 

M  Let  any  one  think  of  Luther's  judgment  on  the  Epistle  of  James  and  the  Apocalypse. 


ITS  INSPIRATION.  205 

We  are  reminded  (b]  that  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  made  and 
fulfilled,  not  exclusively  to  the  Apostles,  but  to  all  believers,  and  at  least 
was  not  personally  addressed  to  the  fellow-helpers  of  the  Lord's  first  wit- 
nesses— Mark,  Luke,  and  others.     We  shall  not  reply  to  this  objection  by 
a  sharp  distinction  between  ordinary  and  extraordinary  gifts  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  which  is  nowhere  made  in  the  Gospel  itself;  but  we  call   attention 
to  the  fact  that,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  the  Spirit  must  work  most 
abundantly  in  those  who  had  stood  closest  to  Jesus,  and  had  in  addition 
received  the  highest  work  to  accomplish  ;  at  the  same  time,  also,  nothing 
forbids   us   to   suppose,    as   among   others    Witsius   did,  a   difference   of 
degree  in  the  inspiration  of  the  different  witnesses  to  the  same  Gospel. 
(c)  We  are  pointed  to  the  difference,  inter  sc,  of  the  various  Prophetic  and 
Apostolic  doctrinal  ideas  (Lekrbegriffe} ;  and  this  is  a  peculiarity  we  do  not 
wish  simply  to  ignore.     It  is  an  inseparable  consequence  of  the  difference 
of  dispensation,  of  individuality,  of  circumstances;  and  is  one  proof  the 
more  that  the  Holy  Spirit  has  guided  them,  not  only  with  the  highest  free- 
dom, but  also  with  the  highest  wisdom.     Only  then  would  the  difference 
cause  us  anxiety,  if  it  could  be  shown  that  the  one  proclaimed  to  us  what 
amounted  to  another  Gospel  from  that  proclaimed  by  the  other.     As  it  is, 
we  owe  precisely  to  this  diversity  the  infinite  fulness  and  the  higher  unity 
of  the  Scriptures,      (d)  Errors  and  inaccuracies,  in  matters  of  subordinate 
importance,  are,  as  we  have  already  seen,  undoubtedly  to  be  found  in  the 
Bible.     A  Luther,  a  Calvin,  a  Coccejus,  among  the  older  Theologians;  a 
Tholuck,  a  Neander,  a  Lange,  a  Stier,  among  the  more  modern  ones,  have 
admitted   this  without    hesitation.      But  this   proves   absolutely   nothing 
against  the  truth   and  authority  of  the  Word,  where  it  is  speaking  of  the 
Way  of  Salvation.     If  any  one  thinks  himself  at  liberty,  in  this  last  respect 
also,  to  distrust  the  testimony  of  the  Apostles,  because,  e.g.,  they  not  ob- 
scurely reveal  that  they  look  for  the  return  of  the  Lord  within  a  very  short 
time,  let  him  not  forget  that  with  regard  to  the  precise  period  nothing  was 
revealed  to  them,  and  that  the  prospect  itself  does  not  vanish,  although  it 
be  realised  at  another  time  and  in  another  way  than  was  at  first  expected. 
(Compare  what  we  have  written  on  this  point  in  the  Jaarbb.  1845,  ii.,  pp. 
90 — 99.)     How  the  first  organs  of  the  Holy  Spirit  were  led  forward  from 
light  to  light,  is  evident,  for  instance,  from  Acts  x.  9,  etc.     (e)  Certainly  the 
history  of  the  Apostles  also  speaks  of  differences  among  themselves,  and 
of  deplorable  failures.39    But  of  a  variance  which  affects  the  distinct  answer- 
ing of  the  great  question  of  life,  there  is  not  a  word.    The  Apostles  no  more 
laid  claim  to  perfect  holiness  than  to  omniscience,  but  every  sin  which  we 
still  discover  in  them  manifested  itself  notwithstanding  the  Spirit  under 
whose  guidance  they  were  ;  and  where,  moreover,  their  human  imperfection 
remained,  the  Holy  Spirit  was  able  to  preserve   them  from  any  error  preju- 
dicial to  their  right  conception   of  the  truth,   and,  as  appears  from  the 
results,  He  has  done  so.     All  these  scruples  arise  from  not  yet  having  the 
courage  to  recognise,  along  with  the  manifestly  Divine  character  of  Holy 
Scripture,  also  its  truly  human  character.57 

88  Acts  xv.  39 ;  xxiii.  3  ;  Gal.  ii.  II — 14. 

57  Compare,   on    the   Divine-human    character   of  Holy    Scripture,    the    treatise   of 
E.  C.  A.  RIEHM,  Stud.  u.  Krit.  (1859),  ii. 


206  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

14.  Just  as  little  is  the  doctrine  we  have  laid  down  in  regard  to  Inspiration 
refuted  by  difficulties  of  another  nature. — It  is  perhaps  spoken  of  as  without 
significance;  since  profane  Antiquity  also  regarded  its  greatest  men  as  inspired, 
and  we  here  consequently  seem  to  ascribe  to  Prophets  and  Apostles 
nothing  entirely  extraordinary.  And  certainly  Seneca,  Cicero,  and  others 
have  recognised  in  the  great  spirits  of  their  age  the  influence  of  a  higher 
inspiration.  All  inspiration  in  the  extra-biblical  domain  we  also  would 
not  willingly  deny ;  more  than  this,  we  could  not  do  so,  if  we  truly  believe 
in  Him  who,  even  before  His  incarnation,  was  the  life  and  light  of  men 
(John  i.  4).  But  we  must  here  yet  once  more  refer  to  the  important  place 
occupied  by  Israel  as  the  people  of  Revelation,  in  whom,  both  before  and 
after  the  coming  of  Christ,  the  Spirit  of  truth  wrought  and  spake,  as  in  no 
other  sphere.  V/e  must  direct  attention  to  the  difference  between  the 
Inspiration  of  the  Prophets  and  Apostles  and  the  soothsaying-faculty 
(u.a.vTiK-f))  of  the  ancients.58  We  must  ask,  finally,  to  which  ot  the  profane 
speakers  or  writers  has  a  testimony  like  that  to  the  Prophets,  a  promise 
like  that  to  the  Apostles,  been  given  and  fulfilled  by  the  King  of  truth? 
In  no  case  can  a  guiding  be  regarded  as  unimportant,  to  which  we  owe 
a  document,  through  which,  as  in  no  other  writing,  the  Holy  Spirit  expresses 
Himself. 

Just  as  little  is  it  insufficient,  because  there  is  still  left  so  much  of 
obscurity  and  contradiction  in  Holy  Scripture,  and  in  addition  to  this, 
there  is  so  great  a  diversity  of  readings,  of  translation,  and  of  exposition. 
Or  how  shall  we — because  we  do  not  possess  everything  that  we  could 
desire — despise  so  much  that  is  good  and  great?  Holy  Scripture  is  consti- 
tuted in  precisely  such  a  manner  as  to  afford  no  cushions  for  our  indolence, 
but  always  a  stimulus  to  our  continued  investigation.59  "  We  know  well 
there  are  some  scrupulous  registrar-like  souls,  who,  even  if  celestial  spirits 
should  appear  to  them,  would  not  believe  without  vised  certificates  from 
another  world.  We  Christians,  however,  must  learn  to  believe  in  testi- 
monies of  the  Spirit,  which  stand  higher  than  written  certificates.  If  any 
one's  faith  in  the  Son  of  God  is  staggered  because  he  knows  not,  for 
instance,  whether  in  Acts  xx.  28,  'The  Church  of  God,'  or  ' of  the  Lord,"  is 
the  true  reading ;  because  he  is  not  sure  whether  he  should  believe  with 
Matthew,  that  vinegar  was  offered  to  the  Saviour,  or  with  Mark,  that  it  was 
sour  wine ;  whether  Christ  healed  the  blind  man  on  His  entrance  into 
Jericho,  or  His  departure  therefrom ;  what  would  a  Paul  have  replied  to 
the  difficulties  of  such  an  one  ?  '  Man,'  he  would  have  answered,  '•thine  hour 
is  not  yet  conieT"™ 

Impossible,  finally,  would  the  operation  described  by  us  be,  only  if 
miracles  were  impossible  ;  but  comp.  §  32.  He  who  truly  believes  in  a  living 
God,  and  in  the  spirit  of  man,  must  esteem  an  Inspiration  of  the  sacred 
writers  as  the  more  probable,  in  proportion  as  with  us  he  regards  the 
Bible  as  the  means  designed  and  appointed  of  God,  for  testifying  of  His 
Kingdom  and  plan  of  Salvation  (§  xxxvi.  12).  Only  in  one  case  could  this 

88  Compare  page  139. 

49  Comp.  DA  COSTA,  Voorl.  over  het  0.  T.  (1848),  ii.  p.  395,  etc. 

60  THOLUCK,  Deutsche  Zeitschr.  (1850),  p.  344. 


ITS   INSPIRATION.  20/ 

Inspiration  have  been  considered  unworthy  of  God,  if  it  had  degraded  the 
witnesses  of  the  truth  into  instruments,  without  will  or  consciousness.  As  it 
is  now,  however,  it  is  one  more  admirable  manifestation  of  Omnipotence  and 
Liberb-,  of  Wisdom  and  Love ;  and  he  who  regards  it  as  impossible  must 
in  principle  also  deny  the  possibility  of  all  Conversion,  since  this — not 
less  than  Inspiration — is  a  Divine  operation  in  the  domain  of  the  Spiritual 
Life. 

15.  As  Holy  Scripture,  on  the  one  hand,  contains  the  Word  of  God — i.e.,  the 
Divine  Revelation — so  may  Scripture  itself,  in  its  totality,  on  the  other,  be 
termed  the  Word  of  God,  as  a  consequence  of  the  Theopneustia  of  its  Writers. 
At  the  end  of  this  our  investigation,  this  last  statement  can  hardly  stand 
in  need  of  elucidation  or  proof.     The  fruitless  controversy  as  to  whether 
the  Bible  is  God's  Word,  or  whether  it  only  contains  it,  is  well  known. 
Whereas  formerly  both  propositions  were  identified,  and  sometimes  con- 
fused,  in  later  times   an  accurate  distinction  has   been   demanded  with 
increasing   emphasis.     This   demand,    however   frequently   abused,   is   in 
principle  a  legitimate  one,  as  opposed  to  the  boundless  misconception  to 
which  its  non-recognition  has  but  too  frequently  led.     Only  on  both  sides 
there  is  need  for  caution,  lest  the  two  sides  of  the  same  thing  should  be 
opposed  to  each  other  as  in  irreconcilable  contrast.     The  statement,  "  the 
Bible  is  God's  Word,"  brings  into  the  foreground  the  higher  unity  of  Holy 
Scripture;  the  counter-statement,  "the  Bible  contains  God's  Word,"  brings 
into  the  foreground  its  manifest  diversity.     It  contains  the  Word  of  God, 
because  it  is  the  record  of  that  which  God  has  spoken  to  man,  as  well  in 
deeds  as  in  words  •  it  is,  taken  in  its  entirety,  God's  Word,  because  it  is 
notably  the  work  of  one  Spirit,  which  in  different  measure  animated  the 
inspired  Writers,  and  which  is  the  higher  bond  even  between  the  most 
different  parts.61     But   the   formula,    "  the   Bible  is  God's  Word,"  must 
never  be  taken  in  such  a  way  as  to  mean  that  every  single  word  in  the 
Bible  is  a  word  of  God  in  the  proper  sense  of  this  expression.     Words  of 
men,  yea,  of  devils,  as  well  as  of  God,  are  to  be  read  in  the  Bible,  although 
certainly  written  under  Divine  guidance.     All  in  the  Bible  which  is  plainly 
seen  to  be  a  constituent  part  of  Divine  Revelation,  is  God's  Word  ;  and 
again,  the  Bible  itself  is  God's  Word,  because — and  in  so  far  as — the  Spirit 
of  God  here  addresses  us  as  nowhere  else.     Both  statements  are  thus  true, 
when  they  are  allowed  to  stand  side  by  side ;  but  cease  to  be  the  pure  and 
just  expression  of  the  truth,  as  soon  as  they  are  opposed  to  each  other. 
2 "he proposition,  " the  Bible  contains  God's  Word"  is  most  in  harmony  with 
the  Spirit  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  also  preferable  on  account  of  its  greater 
perspicuity?*     The  proposition,  "  the  Bible  is  God's  Word,"  points  to  the 
Divine  origin  of  Holy  Scripture  regarded  as  a  whole,  but  may — as  applied 
to   particular   parts — very   easily   lead    to   misunderstanding.     Here    the 
accurate  remark  of  Lange  is  in  place,  "  Every  single  statement  is  suscepti- 
ble of  misconception  :   the  Bible  in  its  totality  can,  however,  be  misunder- 
stood, and  become  a  cause  of  offence,  only  in  the  case  of  a  spirit  more  or 
less  estranged  from  it.     In  this  it  may  be  compared  to  the  Creation.     The 

61  Compare  the  work  on  the  Continuity  of  Scripture,  by  the  present  Lord  Hatherley. 
83  Comp.  DOEDES,  Leer  der  Zal.,  pp.  13 — 16. 


208  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

one-sided  observer  of  the  single  forms  thereof  may  become  a  criticiser  of 
the  order  of  nature,  or  a  Polytheist ;  but  for  him  who  allows  the  spirit  of 
creation,  as  a  whole,  to  speak  to  his  spirit,  the  revelation  of  God  in  nature 
will  disclose  itself  ever  more  clearly.  So  is  it  with  the  higher  reve- 
lation of  God  in  Holy  Scripture.  In  its  unity  it  is  clear  as  sunlight — a 
sparkling  crystal  of  the  revelation  and  recognition  of  God."  Let  us  add, 
precisely  in  this  its  at  once  Divine  and  human  character  is  manifested 
the  analogy  between  the  Scripture  and  the  Christ  (comp.  §  xxviii.  i).  But 
precisely  therein  lies  also  the  reason  why  the  origin  and  composition 
of  the  Scriptures  has  for  us,  no  less  than  the  person  of  the  Lord — along 
with  so  much  that  is  clear — also  its  mysterious  side,  and,  like  the  latter, 
remains  the  object  of  continued  research. 

Compare,  besides  the  works  already  mentioned,  the  article  Inspiration,  by  THOLUCK, 
in  Herzog,  R.  E.  vi. ,  p.  692,  with  the  literature  therein  mentioned  ;  and  his  treatise  in  the 
Deutsche  Zeitschrift  (1850),  No.  16— 18,  42 — 44  ;  P.  JALAGUYER,  L  Inspiration  du  N.  T. 
(1852);  Christel.  Tijdvr.  door  een  Jurist  (iv.  Over  Schrift-inspiratie,  1853);  MEHRING, 
Zur  Revision  des  Inspir.-Begriffes,  in  the  Zeitschrift  fur  Luth.  7heol.  (1862),  i.  ;  ROTHE, 
Zur  Dogmatik  (1863),  p.  200,  etc.  ;  A.  MONOD,  L' Inspiration  protwee  par  ses  (Euvres 
(1864) ;  GUIZOT,  Meditations,  i.  (1864),  p.  150,  etc.  ;  E.  VON  MURALT,  Die  gottliche 
Eingebung  der  H.  S.,  Inaugural  Discourse  (1864) ;  J.  C.  KNIGHT,  The  Law,  the  Prophets, 
and  the  Psalms,  etc.  (1866);  a  treatise  of  L.  NESSELMAN,  in  the  Beweis  des  Glaubens, 
(1868),  p.  309,  etc.  ;  \V.  SCHMIDT,  Ztir  Inspirations/rage  (1869) ;  A.  DIETZSCH,  Die 
Lehre  von  der  Inspiration  der  Schrift,  in  the  btudien  u.  Kritiken  (1869),  iii.,  p.  428,  etc.; 
J.  J.  VAN  OOSTERZEE,  Art.  on  Bijbelbestrijding,  in  Voor  Kerk  en  Theol.  i.  (1871),  pp. 
345—375- 

POINTS   FOR   INQUIRY: 

The  accusation  of  reasoning  in  a  circle  more  nearly  examined  and  criticised. — Agree- 
ment and  difference  between  the  promises  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels 
and  in  John. — What  is  the  sense  of  2  Tim.  iii.  16,  as  compared  with  2  Pet.  i.  20,  21  ? — 
Are  there  good  grounds  for  asserting  that  the  binding  authority  and  inspiration  of  the 
Apostolic  writings  was  at  once  acknowledged  in  the  post-Apostolic  age  ?  (Credner, 
Stuffken,  Vinke). — Further  criticism  of  the  theory  of  the  inspiration  of  the  letter,  as  it  is 
presented  by  Gaussen  and  others. — Can  the  acknowledgment  of  errors  and  inacuracies  in 
the  Sacred  Writings  be  brought  into  accord  with  the  reverence  due  to  the  Bible  ? — In 
what  way  are  we  to  conceive  of  the  gradual  progress  in  the  Theopneustia  of  the  Sacred 
Writers  ? — Can  inspiration  be  ascribed  also  to  the  most  illustrious  witnesses  for  the  faith  in 
later  times  ?  and  if  so,  to  what  extent  ? — Does  the  statement,  that  the  Bible  contains  God's 
Word,  open  the  door  too  wide  to  subjective  speculation? — What  value  must  thus  be 
attached  to  Holy  Scripture  as  a  whole,  and  in  its  parts  ? 


SECTION  XL. — ITS  VALUE. 


As  a  sacred  record  of  such  exalted  origin,  Holy  Scripture  has 
an  absolutely  priceless  value.  While  as  a  permanent  condition  it 
is  indispensable  for  a  clear  knowledge  of  Divine  revelation,  it  is  to 


ITS  VALUE.  209 

this  end  perfectly  sufficient.  And  while  sufficiently  clear  in  itself,  it 
is  invested  with  irrefragable  Authority  in  the  domain  of  Religion 
and  Christianity.  Not  every  one  of  its  parts  has  an  equal  claim  to 
this  high  estimate  ;  but  in  its  totality,  Holy  Scripture,  as  the  source 
of  knowledge  and  the  test  of  Saving  Truth,  has  an  importance 
which  may  not  be  ascribed  either  to  Church  tradition,  or  to  any 
other  word  or  writing  of  men.  The  defence  of  this  its  unique 
importance  against  the  continued  opposition  of  Roman  Catholicism, 
Rationalism,  and  Mysticism,  is  for  the  Evangelical  Protestant 
Church  and  Theology,  a  demand  of  preponderating  obligation. 

1.  After  establishing  the  Inspiration  of  Scripture,  the  examination  as  to 
its  Value  naturally  takes  the  first  place.     More  particularly  must  here  the 
qualities  (Affectioties  S.  S.)  be  treated,  by  which  it  is  distinguished  and 
commended  as  a  fit  document  of  the  Saving  Revelation.     Especially  since 
the  Reformation   have   these   attributes   been   treated   of  in  Dogmatics, 
although  not  always  defined  and  classified  in  the   same   manner.     The 
Netherlands  Confession  speaks  (Art.  vii.)  of  the  Completeness  and  Authority 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures.     In  common  with  many  others,  we  speak  also  of 
their  Indispensableness  and  their  Perspicuity;  without  considering  it  neces- 
sary, with  some  others,  here  to  speak  of  their  powerful  operation  (Efficada\ 
since  this  can  be  more  properly  treated  of  under  the  head  of  the  Means  of 
Grace  (§  136).     The  importance  of  this  examination  from  the  standpoint 
of  Protestant  Dogmatics — especially  that  of  the  Reformed  Church — can 
hardly  be  disputed. 

2.  The  absolute  indispensableness  (necessifas)  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures, 
especially  those  ot  the  New  Testament,  has  doubtless  been  sometimes 
defended  in  a  way  whicn  has  called  forth  legitimate  opposition.     It  has 
not  always  been  considered  that  the  Church  is  older  than  the  Bible,  and 
that  the  first  community  primarily  knew  and  followed  no  other  rule  of  faith 
than  the  Word  of  the  Lord  and  of  His  Apostles,  orally  transmitted  to  it.1 
Meanwhile  Augustine  had  already  observed  with  justice,2  that  there  were 
Christians  living  in  solitude,  who  were  full  of  faith,  hope,  and  love,  without 
possessing  any  written  books ;  and  Lessing  also,  in  his  well-known  contro- 
versy with  Goeze,  has  pointed  out  the  value  of  tradition  in  contradistinc- 
tion from  the  indispensableness  of  the  Bible.     It  must  be  acknowledged 
that  the  Church  arose  and  was  at  first  extended  without  Holy  Writ,  but  no 
less  must  it  be  acknowledged  that  without  the  Scriptures  a  clear  knowledge 
of  the  doctrine  of  Salvation  is,  as  a  permanent  condition,  impossible.     "  The 
Scripture  belongs  not  to  the  Being,  but  to  the  Well-being  of  the  Church" 
(Hase).     Doubtless  the  word  of  the  Apostles  has  laid  the  foundation  of 
the  Church,  but  after  the  last  of  the  Apostles  has  ceased  to  -speak,  either 
the  original  source  of  knowledge  is  closed  for  all  after  ages,  or  it  is  preserved 


1  2  Tim.  ii.  2.  *  De  DoctrinA  Ckr.,  c   39. 


210  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

pure  and  accessible  to  all  in  the  word  of  Scripture.  Christian  festivals, 
ceremonies,  and  works  of  art,  also,  might  be  able  to  preserve  for  a  while  the 
remembrance  of  the  facts  of  salvation  ;  but  not  one  of  these  accessory  means 
would  be  able  permanently  to  supply  the  place  of  Scripture.  History  shows 
that  the  time  of  the  Church's  prosperity  has  kept  equal  pace  with  the  use  or 
neglect  of  Scripture,  and  that  she  owes  her  Reformation  to  the  renewed 
reading  of  the  half-buried  word  of  Scripture.  The  Bible  itself  contains 
utterances  which  convincingly  prove  that  Protestantism  has  not  overrated 
its  value.  Let  any  one  compare  the  word  of  Paul  with  regard  to  the  Old 
Testament  ;8  which  assuredly  applies  to  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament 
with  no  less  justice  than  do,  e.g.,  the  words  of  Jesus,  Matt.  xxii.  29;  John 
v.  39,  and  other  places.  Finally,  experience  teaches  that  at  no  stage  of  spirit- 
ual development  can  the  salutary  influence  of  Scripture  be  wholly  dispensed 
with.4  It  serves  not  merely  as  a  training  book  up  to  a  state  of  maturity 
(niondigheid\  which  many  Christians  have  attained  to  here  below,  but  also  as 
a  guide  to  the  highest  degree  of  perfection,  and  an  indispensable  corrective 
against  all  error  and  sin  in  the  domain  of  spiritual  life ;  naturally  under 
the  condition  that  it  is  not  employed  and  circulated  as  a  dead  letter,  but  is 
received  as  a  living  word,  and  is  sanctified  in  truth  to  the  heart  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  With  these  qualifying  explanations,  however,  we  may  accept  the 
statement:  " Scriptura  Ecclesice  ita  necessaria  est,  tit  ea  noil  niagis  quam 
mundus  sole,  quin  et  ipso  Deo  carere possit"  (Heidegger,  t  1698). 

3.  That  which  is  in  this  sense  indispensable,  must  also  at  the  same  time 
be  recognised  as  sufficient.  With  the  necessity  for  the  Scripture,  its  sufficiency 
(stifficientia)  is  most  closely  connected.  The  limit  of  this  sufficiency  lies  in 
the  particular  tendency  of  Scripture.  Not  seldom  has  it  been  put  to  the 
lower  use  of  a  textbook  of  Geography,  Theology,  Cosmogony  ;  for  this  it  is 
just  as  little  designed  as  it  is  adapted.  "Scripture  is  not  given  to  make  us 
acquainted  with  the  course  of  heavenly  bodies,  but  with  the  way  to  heaven 
itself  "  (Baronius).  And  that  the  knowledge  of  the  way  of  salvation  cannot 
possibly  be  dispensed  with,  even  though  its  value  is  sometimes  extolled  in  a 
one-sided  manner,  is  just  as  certain  as  that  the  Holy  Scriptures,  although 
not  all  in  an  equal  degree,  are  on  this  subject  the  source,  par  excellence,  of 
our  knowledge  (comp.  §  8).  With  less  of  precision  has  it  formerly  been 
sought  to  prove  this  its  sufficiency  from  the  repeated  prohibition  against 
taking  anything  from,  or  adding  anything  to,  the  Word  of  God  ; 6  since  in 
none  of  the  places  referred  to  is  the  whole  Bible  spoken  of.  But  taking 
into  account  only  the  subject-matter  of  Holy  Scripture,  its  sufficiency  can 
be  deduced  therefrom.  We  already  hear  the  high  value  of  the  precepts 
and  saving  revelations  of  the  Old  Testament  emphatically  asserted  ;6  and 
the  value  of  the  Gospel,  even  where  it  comes  to  us  in  a  written  form,  is 
raised  above  all  praise.7  No  wonder  that  in  the  Reformation  Age  we  hear 
this  property  of  Holy  Scripture  universally  assented  to  without  hesitation, 

8  2  Tim.  iil  16. 

4  2  Tim.  iii.  16,  17. 

*  DeuL  iv.  2  ;  xii.  32  ;  Prov.  xxx.  5,  6  ;  Rev.  xxii.  18,  19. 

6  Ps.  xix.,  cxix.  ;  Luke  xvi.  29 — 31  ;  John  v.  39. 

'  Rom.  i.  16;  Gal.  i.  7,  8. 


ITS  VALUE.  211 

even  by  the  Socinians.  We  maintain  it,  not  only  against  the  Romish 
Church,  which,  by  the  place  it  assigns  to  tradition,  ipso  facto  declares  Scrip- 
ture to  be  insufficient,  but  also  against  every  kind  of  Mysticism,  which  exalts 
the  inner  testimony  above  the  written  word.8  The  unceasing  appeal, 
especially  of  this  last,  to  2  Cor.  iii.  6,  can  only  be  regarded  as  the  fruit  of 
a  mistaken  exegesis. 

4.  With  the  two  before-named  properties  of  Holy  Scripture  is  most  inti- 
mately allied  a  third — its  perspicuity ;  in  consequence  of  which  it  is  self- 
explanatory  (pcrspicuitas,  et  scmet  ipsam  intcrpretandi  facultas).  While  we 
ascribe  this  to  Holy  Scripture  in  its  totality,  we  naturally  do  not  deny  that 
many  single  parts  thereof  may  be  considered  very  obscure  and  mysterious. 
Even  the  ancient  Psalmist  thought  the  prayer  for  higher  enlightenment 
necessary  ; 9  and  we  hear  the  Apostle  Peter  speak  of  some  obscure  things 
in  the  Epistles  of  Paul.10  But  although  the  subject  is  here  and  there  too 
deep  to  be  fathomed,  the  words  are  nevertheless  sufficiently  intelligible  ;  and 
especially  those  utterances  with  which  Dogmatics  more  particularly  has  to 
do  (dicta  probantia},  are  not  seldom  distinguished  by  a  surprising  degree  of 
clearness.  It  is  true  the  \vord  of  Scripture  will  not  be  for  all  equally  clear; 
for  some  even,  nearly  unintelligible.  "  The  perspicuilas  S.S.  presupposes  cer- 
tain definite  subjective  conditions,  namely,  religious  wants  and  a  desire  for  the 
knowledge  of  the  truth  "  (J.  Miiller).  Where,  however,  these  prerequisites 
are  not  altogether  wanting,  there,  as  is  manifest  from  history  and  experience, 
the  Scripture,  especially  of  the  New  Testament,  is  sufficiently  intelligible, 
even  if  need  be  without  any  other  means  of  help,  to  give  a  satisfactory  answer 
to  the  great  question  of  life.  With  good  reason,  therefore,  do  the  sacred 
writers  themselves  boast  of  the  clearness  of  the  holy  oracles,  so  far  as  they 
were  given  in  their  days.11  This  pe:spicuity  of  the  Scripture  is  a  conse- 
quence, partly,  of  its  subject-matter,  which  is  in  great  measure  historic ; 
partly,  of  its  concrete,  plastic  form.  It  is  in  vain  that  this  its  clearness  is 
assailed  by  the  mention  of  so  much  misunderstanding  and  failure  to  under- 
stand, seeking  to  justify  itself  by  an  appeal  to  the  "It  is  written"  of  Scripture. 
If  every  false  doctiine  can  find  its  show  of  support  (hceft  icder  ketter  zijne 
letter],  each  truth,  on  the  other  hand,  has  its  self-evidencing  clearness  (elke 
waarhcid  hare  eigcne  klaarhcid} ;  and  upon  much  that  was  at  first  obscure, 
there  later  arises  a  satisfactory  light.  We  need  not  say  that  intelligibieness 
is  an  attribute  of  the  original,  but  not  on  this  account  of  every  translation, 
defective  as  many  of  them  are  ;  and  that  it  does  not  exclude  the  use  of 
suitable  aids,  but  rather  presuppose  and  call  for  them. 

Such  being  the  case  there  is  no  reason  for  maintaining  with  the  Romish 
Church,  the  necessity  for  an  official  interpretation  by  the  Church.  What 
was  obscure  for  the  Ethiopian  chamberlain  (Acts  viii.  31)  was  not  the 
word  of  Scripture  in  itself,  but  the  truth  therein  proclaimed ;  because  he 
knew  not  yet  the  fact  of  its  fulfilment.  To  take  another  instance,  the  sense 
of  the  words  in  which  the  Lord's  Supper  was  instituted  appears  obscure, 

8  Calv.  Inst.,  i.  9,  I. 

9  Ps.  cxix.  18. 

10  2  Pet.  iii.  1 6. 

11  Ps.  cxix.  97 — 105  ;  compare  Rom.  x.  5 — 10  ,  2  Pet.  i.  19. 

P  2 


212  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

judged  by  the  controversy  still  being  waged  in  regard  to  their  meaning ; 
but  the  obscurity  arises  from  the  fact  that  the  exegesis — here,  perhaps, 
more  than  anywhere — is  ruled  by  Dogmatic  prepossession.  It  might 
rather  be  expected  beforehand  that  the  document  of  a  revelation  intended 
by  God  for  all,  would  not  be  wanting  in  at  least  a  certain  measure  of 
inteiligibleness;  and  as  a  result  of  experience  it  is  ever  afresh  apparent 
that  the  best  preservative  against  a  perverted  interpretation  of  particular 
parts  of  Scripture  is  to  be  found  in  Scripture  as  a  whole.  And  yet  more, 
" habet  Scriptura  suos  haustus primos,  habet  secundos,  habet  tertios'"  (Augus- 
tine). The  Scripture,  taken  in  separate  parts,  best  explains  itself;  because 
with  attentive  comparison  the  light  of  one  utterance  communicates  itself  to 
another,  while  the  knowledge  of  the  whole  assigns  to  each  part  its  place  in 
its  just  connection.  This  is  also  the  higher  truth  of  the  requirement  so 
frequently  misunderstood,  that  the  sound  explanation  of  Scripture  must  be 
one  in  accordance  with  the  analogy  of  faith.  It  implies  that  every  pas- 
sage must  be  understood  in  the  light,  not  of  the  whole  doctrinal  system  of 
the  Church,  but  of  the  particular  doctrinal  conception  of  the  speaker  or 
writer,  from  whom  it  is  taken.  Where  this  method  is  observed  in  conjunction 
with  the  prayerful  use  of  suitable  aids,  there  usually  the  mists  are  dis- 
persed ;  and  with  full  right  one  may  consequently  maintain  the  intelligible- 
ness  of  Holy  Scripture  against  a  cloudy  Mysticism  on  the  one  hand,  and 
an  arrogant  Ultramontanism  on  the  other,  which  call  the  sunlight  darkness, 
so  long  as  it  is  not  seen  by  the  glare  of  their  own  smoking  torch. 
What  has  been  said  of  the  infallibility  of  the  sacred  testimony  has  also  its 
application  in  regard  to  the  clearness  thereof.  "  Not  every  portion  of  the 
Bible,  not  even  every  single  doctrinal  statement,  is  infallible,  in  the  sense  that 
it  cannot  be  misunderstood,  even  by  the  honest  and  earnest  inquirer ;  and 
yet  it  is  in  its  totality  infallible,  and  because  in  its  totality,  therefore  also 
in  its  single  parts.  Since,  namely,  each  single  part  stands  in  connection 
with  the  whole,  it  receives  from  this  latter  its  light,  and  from  it  its  expo- 
sition" (Schmid). 

5.  The  Word  of  God,  thus  indispensable,  sufficient,  and  perspicuous,  is 
— in  the  domain  of  Christianity  and  Religion — endowed  with  a  wholly 
unique  Authority.  There  is  no  principle,  perhaps,  which  appeared  with 
such  vivifying  power  in  the  domain  of  Christian  Dogmatics  during  the 
Reformation  Age,  as  that  of  the  exclusive  and  all-deciding  authority  of 
Holy  Scripture.  There  was  inscribed  aloft  on  the  banner  of  the  Reformers 
the  word  of  Augustine :  "  Titubabit  fides,  r/  vatillet  S.  Scriptura  auctoritas" 
(comp.  §  viii.  2).  It  would  be  superfluous  to  support  by  a  number  of 
citations,  that  which  is  by  no  one  seriously  doubted.  In  proportion  as 
the  Reformation  powerfully  protested  against  all  human  authority  in  the 
religious  domain,  did  it  unreservedly  bow  before  that  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, which  henceforth  took  the  place  of  the  infallible  Church,  as  the 
highest  court  of  appeal.  If  possible,  yet  more  strongly  than  Luther,  did 
Zwingli,  Calvin,  and  those  spiritually  allied  to  them,  express  themselves  on 


17  Rom.  xii.  6. 


ITS  VALUE.  213 

this  point.13  Between  the  different  Symbolical  Writings,  also,  there  prevails 
on  this  point  a  perfect  unanimity.  In  proof,  we  adduce  only  the  beginning 
of  the  Confessio  Helvetica  Posterior:  "Credimus  et  confitemur,  Scripturas 
Canonicas  ....  ipsum  verum  esse  verbum  Dei,  et  auctoritatem  sufficien- 
tem  ex  semet  ipsis,  non  ex  hominibus  habere.  Nam  Deus  ipse  locutus  est 
Patribus,  Prophetis  et  Apostolis,  et  loquitur  adhuc  per  S.  Scripturas."  In 
a  similar  sense  the  Netherlands  Confession  expresses  itself  (Art.  vii.),  as 
also  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  (Answ.  25).  In  this  sense  also  was  the 
doctrine  of  the  Scripture  authority  developed  by  the  Reformed  Dogmatists. 
Holy  Scripture  in  its  totality  was  recognised  not  only  as  the  highest  stan- 
dard for  faith  and  walk,  but  also  as  the  decisive  arbiter  in  every  religious 
difference.14  It  was  called  not  only  Norma  Correctionis,  but  also  directionis, 
a  rule  as  well  in  the  active  as  in  the  passive  sense.  This  its  authority  it 
derived  not  fro:n  any  ecclesiastical  sanction ;  but  possessed  it — as  God's  own 
Word — in  itself.  By  virtue  of  this  its  absolute  authority,  all  that  is  actually 
taught  in  Scripture,  or  can  be  legitimately  deduced  therefrom,  was  held  to 
be  an  unalterable  doctrine  of  the  Church ;  what  was  in  conflict  with  the 
teaching  of  Scripture  was  to  be  unhesitatingly  rejected  ;  that  which  Scripture 
leaves  undecided  was  looked  upon  as  not  actually  necessary  to  salvation. 
It  could  not,  therefore,  possibly  be  admitted  that  the  Scripture  contradicts 
itself  on  any  point ;  at  mo  it  there  could  be  only  apparent  contradictions, 
but  the  function  of  Hannonistic  sci  ence  is  to  resolve  these ;  and  where  the 
latter  had  fulfilled  its  task,  there  a  simple  "  It  is  written "  became  the 
decisive  end  of  all  controversy. 

If  it  is  asked  whether  this  conception  of  the  authority  of  Scripture  can 
in  the  present  day  b3  in  every  respect  endorsed  by  us,  what  has  been 
before  said  (§§  36 — 39)  may  suffice  to  answer  this  question.  To  a 
greater  extent  than  was  before  thought  possible  or  necessary,  has  the 
believing  Theology  of  our  tim*  taught  to  distinguish  between  the  Bible 
itself  and  the  Word  of  God  contained  in  the  Bible,  so  that  he  who  attaches 
any  value  to  accuracy  of  expression,  is  under  obligation  henceforth  to 
speak  in  every  case  of  the  authority  of  the  Word  of  God.  In  doing  so, 
it  is  further  necessary  to  confine  this  last,  to  a  greater  extent  than  was 
frequently  the  case  in  former  times,  to  the  domain  of  Saving  Truth,  and 
consequently  to  seek  m  the  Bible  no  solution  of  questions  in  regard  to 
which  it  does  not  present  itself  as  the  highest  arbiter.  "  So  long  as  the 
majority  of  Theologians  treat  the  Bible  as  a  book  of  oracles,  so  long  will 
the  majority  of  educated  laity  regard  it  as  a  book  of  fables  "  (Beyschlag). 
All,  finally,  is  to  be  banished  from  the  notion  of  authority,  which — in  oppo- 
sition to  the  Word  of  God  itself — would  lead  to  arbitrary  limitation  of 
one's  own  thinking  and  examination.  Let  every  one  freely  examine  as  to 
the  grounds  on  which  a  word,  recorded  in  the  Bible,  claims  to  be 
regarded  as  the  Word  of  God  Himself.  Nevertheless,  where  it  is  clearly 
manifest  that  He  Himself  has  spoken  by  the  mouth  of  perfectly  qualified 
witnesses,  we  do  not  hesitate  to  ascribe  to  the  word,  in  the  sense  before 
indicated  (§  xxxiv.  8),  the  highest  authority  for  doctrine  and  life.  The  Word 

13  See  the  places  enumerated  by  Schweitzer,  Glaubenslehre,  etc.,  i.,  p.  198,  seq. 

14  Aitctoritas  normntiva  rt  judkialis. 


214  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

of  God  contained  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  especially  of  the  Afac  Testament,  is 
and  remains,  not  only  the  expression,  but  also  the  rule  of  our  faith,  and  the 
test  not  only  of  the  Christian  character,  but  also  and  above  all  of  the  truth 
of  our  conviction. 

Will  it  still  be  necessary  to  defend  with  many  words  this  proposition  to 
which  we  are  naturally  led  by  all  that  precedes  ?  But  even  the  nature  of 
the  case  must,  upon  a  little  reflection,  place  it  beyond  doubt.  If  it  is  once 
apparent  that  God  has  spoken,  then  the  word  spoken  is  naturally  also  the 
rule  and  arbiter  for  human  thinking ;  not  the  converse.  Holy  Scripture 
itself  points  out  this  standpoint  to  us  as  the  only  firm  and  tenable  one,  and 
shows  the  rejection  thereof  to  be  the  climax  of  folly.15  It  is  true  the  Lord 
and  His  Apostles  repeatedly  appeal  to  the  sound  reason,  the  natural  feeling, 
or  the  living  conscience  of  their  hearers  ; 16  and  they  might  well  do  so,  since 
their  teaching  naturally  and  easily  attached  itself  to  all  these.  •  But  from  this 
it  by  no  means  follows,  as  a  ample  consequence,  that  they  recognised  in  this 
natural  insight  of  their  hearers  the  final  arbiter  in  the  question  as  to  truth 
unto  life  ;  on  the  contrary,  they  had  not  a  little  to  say  to  them,  of  which 
the  accuracy  might  be  perceived  to  a  certain  extent,  but  of  which  the 
essential  contents  must  either  be  accepted  upon  their  word — even  if  this 
were  not  understood — or  else  unbelievingly  rejected.  Such  a  demand  is 
indeed  entirely  in  harmony  with  the  earthly  condition  of  childhood  in  which 
we  live,  and  with  the  nature  of  that  faith,  which  in  its  innermost  kernel  and 
essence  is  not  merely  confidence,  but  obedience}'1  Never  will  the  character 
of  the  heroes  of  the  faith  mentioned  in  Hebrews  xi.  be  duly  appreciated, 
or  awaken  a  kindred  flame,  so  long  as  it  is  tacitly  assumed  in  regard  to 
their  great  deeds,  that  they  thus  acted  or  suffered  only  after  they  had  of 
themselves  perceived  that  God's  word  was,  notwithstanding  all.  essential 
truth,  and  His  requirement  supremely  good. 

..It  is  asserted,  it  is  true,  that  Holy  Scripture,  which  makes  us  acquainted 
with  the  word  ot  God,  is  only  a  test  for  the  Christian  character  of  our  con- 
viction ;  but  not  on  that  account  necessarily  of  its  truth.  We  doubt,  how- 
ever, whether  this  opposition  itself  can  in  principle  be  called  Christian  : 
where  Christ  is  recognised  as  the  revealed  truth,  there  that  which  is  genu- 
inely Christian  is  as  such  at  the  same  time  recognised  as  true.  The  whole 
of  this  opposition  rests  on  the  false  separation  between  ideas  and  facts, 
religious  and  historic  belief,  to  which  reference  has  been  before  made 
(§  xxxviii.  3) ;  in  other  words,  on  a  lamentable  failure  to  perceive  the  historic 
character  of  the  Saving  Revelation.  He  who  holds  firmly  to  this  last  will 
at  the  same  time  be  conscious  that  though  nine-tenths  of  the  contents  of 
this  revelation  had  been  mastered  by  human  thought,  yet  for  the  last  tenth, 
the  unfathomable  remainder,  no  other  choice  would  be  left  us  than  unbe- 
lief, or — belief  on  authority.  He  who  calls  this  standpoint  Judaistic,  is 
perhaps  himself  not  very  far  removed  from  heathen  Naturalism,  and  sees 
himself  compelled  to  accept  either  Rationalism  or  Mysticism,  with  all  its 

15  Isa.  viii.  20 ;  Jer.  viii.  8,  9  ;  John  xvii.  17  ;  Heb.   iv.   12  ;  2  Pet.  i.  19,  and  many 
other  places. 

16  Luke  x.  36;  John  vii.  24  ;  i  Cor.  x.  15,  and  other  places. 

17  2  Cor.  x.  4,  5  ;  2  Thess.  i.  8. 


ITS  VALUE.  215 

inevitable  consequences.  Certainly  he  has  in  principle  broken  with  the 
spirit  of  Protestantism,  which  has  its  basis  and  strength,  not  in  the  recogni- 
tion of  the  individual  autonomy,  but,  on  the  contrary,  of  the  immovable 
Theonomy  (comp.  §  x.  7). 

The  Word  of  God,  as  contained  in  the  Scripture,  remains  consequently 
the  infallible  rule  and  highest  arbiter  in  the  domain  of  Christianity  and  of 
Religion.18  To  the  question,  "  whether  anything  is  true,  because  it  is  in  the 
Bible  ;  or  whether  it  is  in  the  Bible,  because  it  is  true,"  no  better  answer 
can  be  given  than,  "  the  one  and  the  other.1'  Because  something  is  truth 
unto  salvation,  God  has  made  it  known  to  us  by  means  of  the  Bible ;  and 
because  that  which  the  Bible  declares  to  us  of  God's  Saving  Plan,  manifests 
and  proves  itself  on  satisfactory  grounds  to  be  truth,  we  receive  it  as  such 
with  all  gratitude,  desiring  now  also  as  far  as  possible  to  comprehend  it,  but 
— if  need  be — even  without  comprehending  it.  To  use  a  well-known 
figure,  the  truth  is  like  a  glorious  sun,  in  the  midst  of  which  is  a  dark  spot : 
he  who  gazes  long  upon  this  latter,  gradually  discovers  therein  a  new  sun, 
with  a  new  dark  spot :  until  he  must  at  last  turn  away  his  dazzled  eye,  or 
rather  adoringly  close  it.  The  Word  of  God,  at  first  the  "asylum  ignorantix 
nostrcCi'  becomes  very  soon  the  "  centrum  srient'uz  nostrce"  until  the  limited 
extent  of  our  knowledge  compels  us  so  much  the  more  to  take  refuge  in 
this  same  "•asylum." 

6.  No  wonder,  after  what  has  been  said,  that  the  Dogmatics  of  the  Re- 
formed Church  continues  still  to  hold  fast  to  the  "  repudiamus  Iraditiones 
humanas "  of  the  old  Confessions  of  Faith.  In  uttering  this  word,  we 


18  It  will  perhaps  not  be  without  interest  to  remark  that  the  Netherlands  Confession 
(Art.  vi. )  not  indistinctly  teaches  that  what  is  beyond  the  sphere  of  faith  is  not  to  be  tried 
before  the  forum  of  God's  word  in  Holy  Scripture.  Freedom  of  judgment  in  regard  to 
other  subjects,  which  stand  in  no  direct  relation  to  religion,  was  admitted,  and  for  himself 
used  by  Calvin.  (Compare  his  Annotaliunes  on  Gen.  i.  15,  16.)  In  a  similar  sense  has 
sound  orthodoxy  frequently  expressed  itself  in  both  the  main  branches  of  the  Protestant 
Church.  The  Augsb.  Con/.,  for  instance,  (c.  43)  reads:  Apostoli  jusserant  abstinere  a 
sanguine  :  quis  nunc  observat  ?  Neque  tamen  peccant,  ciui  non  observant."  J.  A. 
Quenstadt  (t  1688),  the  Voetius  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  observes  (Syst.  Th.  i.,  p.  241) 
— "  Licet  fides,  generaliter  spectata,  versetur  circa  omnia  quae  in  Dei  verbo  continentur, 
specialiter  tamen  versatur  circa  dogmata  fidei.  Quod  observandum,  ne  quis  in  7antteri, 
Jesuitos,  absurditatem  incidat,  qui  omne,  quod  in  Bibliis  SS.  occurrit,  vim  dogmatis 
obtinere  .  .  .  .  ita  asseruit,  ut  etiam  ex  incestu  J  udse  et  cane  Tobiae  caudam  movente, 
novos  Articulos  fidei  ridicule  produceret.  Sic  etiam  historia  de  caudis  vulpecarum 
Samsonis,  de  asina  Bileami,  de  annis  Methusalem,  de  zedificatione  turris  Bab.,  articulis 
fidei  annumeranda  esset."  In  a  similar  sense  also  others,  of  an  orthodoxy  equally  above 
suspicion.  He  who  on  this  account,  in  stating  the  claim  of  obedience  to  the  Word 
of  God,  in  the  name  of  consistency  so  far  overstates  it,  that  truly  believing  theologians 
must  hold  themselves  obliged  to  assert,  with  the  Berlin  Preacher,  G.  Knak,.  on  the 
ground  of  Josh.  x.  12,  13,  that  the  sun  revolves  round  the  earth,  except  when  at  a  word  of 
miracle  it  stands  still,  seems  to  demand  that  they  should  outstrip  the  orthodoxy  of  the  six- 
teenth and  seventeenth  centuries,  in  order  to  tread  in  the  footsteps  of  the  Jesuit  Tanner. 
On  the  whole  controversy,  compare  the  very  sensible  and  moderate  judgment  of  F.  R. 
Fay  (Lange's  Bible  Work,  O.  T.  iv.,  p.  84  of  the  original),  who  justly  charges  Knak  with  a 
confusion  of  ideas,  "arising  from  an  entire  want  of  scientific  tact,  from  the  injurious  opera- 
tion of  which  the  true  cause  of  faith  has  much  to  suffer."  Must  we  then  infer  from 
[the  Greek  of]  Acts  xxvii.  27,  "  Some  land  was  nearing  them,"  that  the  land  approaches 
us  when  we  are  sailing  towards  the  shore  ?  Cave  a  consequentariis. 


2l6  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

approach  the  treatment  of  the  great  controversy  on  this  subject,  between 
the  Protestant  and  the  Romish  Church. 

By  tradition  (traditio,  ira/xiSoo-tj)  the  Romish  Church  understands  the 
sum  of  those  religious  truths  and  duties,  which  were  presented  by  the  Lord 
and  the  Apostles  only  orally,  and  on  that  account  are  unwritten,  yet  by  the 
Church,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  have  been  transmitted  un- 
corrupted  and  in  unbroken  order.  This  tradition,  variously  divided — 
historic,  dogmatic,  liturgical,  etc. — has  the  design  of  complementing  the 
Scripture,  which  does  not  absolutely  embrace  within  itself  all  that  is  neces- 
sary for  salvation.  It  is  in  great  part  contained  in  the  writings  of  the 
Fathers,  which  consequently  may  be  regarded  as  its  witnesses  ;  while  only 
the  authority  of  the  Church  (consensus  Pa/rum)  raises  anything  to  the  dig- 
nity of  a  universally  acknowledged  tradition.  That  which  has  been  so 
stamped,  has  the  same  authority  as  Holy  Scripture,  and  the  Council  of 
Trent  decided  :  "Si  q~is  traditiones  prcedictas  sciens  et  prudens  contemserit, 
anathema  sit."  Indeed,  being  a  fruit  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  is  impossible 
that  tradition  should  essen  tially  contradict  inspired  Scripture.  More  defi- 
nitely does  Bellarmine  yet  further  distinguish  between  a  written  and  an  un- 
written word  of  God  ;  and  understands  by  this  last,  traditions,  which  he 
again  divides  into  Divine,  Apostolical,  and  Ecclesiastical.  To  uphold  the 
value  of  the  Ecclesiastical  traditions,  he  appeals  especially  to  the  supposed 
fact  that  Scripture  itself  rests  upon  tradition,  and  also  without  the  latter 
must  remain  obscure  and  unintelligible.  In  addition,  he  urges  that  Jesus 
and  the  greater  part  of  the  Apostles  have  left  no  writings  behind  them  ;  and 
that  notably  Paul  several  times  refers  to  tradition,9  while  moreover  the  Pro- 
testants themselves  cannot  give  a  good  reason  for  Infant  Baptism,  the  ob- 
servance of  the  Sunday,  etc.,  without  an  appeal  to  tradition.  On  similar 
grounds  Bossuet  also  defended  the  Romish  standpoint.  Within  the  present 
century  it  has  especially  been  defended  in  a  talented  manner  by  the  re- 
nowned J.  A.  Mohler  (t  1838),  in  his  Symbolik.  He  described  tradition 
as  "the  Word  living  on  in  the  hearts  of  the  faithful  " — the  fruit  of  a  peculiar 
Christian  tact  present  in  the  Church,  and  which  is  handed  down  by  means 
of  the  education  given  by  the  Church.  On  the  Protestant  side  he  has 
been  especially  controverted  by  Baur  and  Nitzsch,  as  was  his  spiritual  kins- 
man Delbriicic,  by  Liicke  and  Sack.  How  much,  nevertheless,  even  at 
the  present  time,  is  covered  and  vindicated,  on  the  part  of  the  Romish 
Church,  by  an  appeal  to  tradition,  the  history  of  the  last  few  years  suffices 
to  show. 

Now  the  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century,  especially  that  in  Switzer- 
land, was  an  unequivocal  protest  against  this  over-valuing  of  Tradition. 
"  Domino  suum  regnum  eripitur,  quoties  Ipse  traditionum  humanarutn  legibus 
colitur,  quod  gravissimum  semper  fuit  crimen  "  (Calvin).  It  was  expressly 
declared  by  the  Netherlands  Confession  (Art.  vii.),  that  no  other  authority 
than  that  of  the  Word  is  to  be  acknowledged  :  other  Confessions  expressed 
themselves  not  less  conclusively,  and  even  the  Arminians  and  Socinians 
held  no  other  views  on  this  point.  It  is  true  that  later  solitary  voices  even 

19  I  Cor.  xi.  2 ;  2  Thess.  ii.  15  ;  iii.  6 ;  2  Tim.  i.  13 ;  ii.  2 ;  iii.  14. 


ITS  VALUE.  217 

within  the  Protestant  Church  have  raised  themselves  in  favour  of  tradition. 
G.  Calixtus  (1634)  looked  upon  the  tradition  of  the  first  five  centuries  as 
a  subordinate  source  of  our  knowledge  of  the  truth,  and  a  basis  for  the 
unity  of  the  Church.  Lessing  made  the  priority  of  tradition,  in  point  of 
time,  over  Scripture  his  bulwark  in  the  battle  against  Orthodoxy.  In  Den- 
mark, Grundtvig  made  the  attempt  in  our  own  time  to  unite  the  confessors 
of  the  Gospel  around  the  banner  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  as  the  earliest 
ind  certain  badge  of  their  faith  ;  and  all  the  crypto-Catholic  movements  of 
jmr  time  seek  openly  or  secretly  to  find,  in  tradition,  a  support  for  their 
authority.  On  the  contrary,  the  Evangelical,  and  especially  the  Reformed 
Church,  still  continues  to  see  a  difference  of  principle  between  herself  and 
Rome  on  this  point ;  and  the  question  presents  itself,  on  which  side  we 
must  take  our  place  in  this  conflict. 

We  may  readily  admit  that  the  Dogmatics  ot  the  seventeenth  century,  in  its 
opposition  to  tradition,  now  and  then  exceeded  the  bounds,  not  only  of  the 
Reformers,  but  also  of  truth  and  soberness.  The  great  value  of  tradition — 
especially  in  the  first  ages  of  the  Church,  when  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment was  not  yet  finally  closed — however  loudly  proclaimed  by  an  Irenseus, 
a  Tertullian,  an  Augustine,  and  others,  has  not  been  always  duly  estimated 
on  the  part  of  ultra-Protestantism.  It  is  of  course  undeniable  that  the 
stream  of  tradition,  in  the  midst  of  so  much  mud  and  silt,  may  have 
brought  down  in  its  bed  many  grains  of  the  pure  gold  of  truth ;  and  that 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  Protestant,  also,  to  listen  with  devout  and  reverent 
attention  to  the  testimony  of  the  ages,  where  that  testimony  is  unanimous 
and  trustworthy.  We  may  add,  that  from  the  standpoint  of  the  so-called 
Modern  Theology  and  mode  of  regarding  Scripture,  all  right  of  polemic 
against  Rome  on  the  score  of  tradition  is  for  ever  annihilated.  Between 
the  fable  of  the  assumption  of  Mary,  and  that  of  Christ,  there  is  for 
Naturalism  no  essential  difference. 

Entirely  different,  hdwever,  is  the  position  of  modern  Supranaturalism, 
which  continues  to  build  upon  the  recognition  of  God's  Word  as  a  sure 
foundation  for  its  faith ;  and  confesses  with  Cyprian,  Consuetude  sine 
veritate,  retustas  erroris  ist.  It  joins  with  a  good  conscience  in  the  contro- 
versy which  has  been  waged  against  Rome  on  this  point  also,  now  for 
nearly  four  centuries,  and  continues  to  confess  that  "  neither  great  numbers, 
nor  antiquity,  nor  the  succession  ot  times  and  persons,  nor  councils, 
decrees,  and  decisions,"  can  bear  any  comparison  with  the  truth  of  God 
according  to  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Indeed,  even  admitting  that  Holy 
Scripture  leaves  unanswered  questions  on  many  points,  yet  that  which  is 
incomplete  can  in  no  case  be  filled  up  by  that  which  is  uncertain.  A 
striking  instance  of  the  "fama  cresrit  eundo"  even  in  sacred  things,  has 
been  preserved  to  us  in  John  xxi.  23.  An  infallible  tradition,  supposing 
it  were  possible,  the  Church  of  Rome  would  be  able  to  prove  only  by  an 
appeal  to  the  promise  of  oly  Scripture,  (John  xvi.  13,  for  example,) 
which  Scripture,  however,  she  asserts  she  could  not  believe,  unless  impelled 
thereto  by  the  authority  of  tradition.  Moreover,  the  promise  of  the  Lord 
belongs  precisely  to  that  Church  which  is  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the 
Apostles  and  Prophets ;  and  with  the  utterances  of  these  Apostles  and 
Prophets  the  Church  of  Rome  is,  on  numberless  points,  in  direct  conflict 


2l8  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

A  miracle,  such  as  they  would  here  have  us  assume,  is  therefore  neither 
promised  nor  to  be  expected. — Exegetically,  the  acknowledgment  of  tradition 
in  the  Romish  sense  can  be  equally  little  justified.  While  Paul  exalts  the 
Apostolic  Paradosis  (2  Thess.  ii.  15  ;  2  Tim.  ii.  2),  yet  precisely  by  adding 
a  further  written  communication  to  that  which  had  been  formerly  given  by 
word  of  mouth,  does  he  sufficiently  show  that  he  regards  a  supplementing 
and  elucidation  of  the  former  as  necessary.  It  is  true  all  Scripture  rests 
upon  anterior  tradition,  but  so  soon  as  th  s  has  been  fixed  in  writing,  its 
oral  transmission  has  become  on  that  very  account  superfluous  :  the  flowing 
stream  is  now 'as  it  were  arrested. — Historically,  moreover,  it  is  sufficiently 
apparent  that  the  Apostolic  tradition,  so  far  from  being  preserved  in  its 
purity,  has  become  in  an  increasing  measure  polluted.  Let  any  one  think 
of  the  round  of  fables  in  the  Apocryphal  Gospels,  of  the  absurd  accounts 
of  Papias  concerning  the  death  of  Judas,  of  the  foolish  description  of  the 
millennium  which  Irenaeus  puts  into  the  lips  of  the  Lord,  and  let  him  draw 
for  himself  the  conclusion  with  regard  to  later  times.  So  many  bonorum 
lapsus,  malorum  impostures  (Chemnitz)  are  here  manifest,  that  tradition 
must  rather  be  corrected  by  Scripture,  than  the  latter  receive  its  comple- 
ment from  tradition. — In  addition  to  this,  the  boasted  Consensus  Patrum 
exists  nowhere  else  but  in  the  imagination.  Even  the  well-known  Sic  et 
Non  of  Abelard  suffices  to  put  an  end  for  ever  to  all  illusion  on  this 
point.  Unceasingly  do  the  earlier  doctrine  of  the  Church  and  the  later 
tradition  directly  contradict  each  other.  The  irreconcilable  contradiction 
with  its  own  utterances  in  which  the  Church  of  Rome  has  been  repeatedly 
involved  in  different  ages,  on  the  question,  for  instance,  of  the  number  of 
Sacraments,  the  immaculate  conception  of  the  Mother  of  the  Lord,  and 
the  Papal  infallibility,  is  no  secret  to  any.  Or,  unless  new  historic  sources 
have  been  discovered,  has  there  been  in  regard  to  all  this  a  new  revelation 
of  the  Spirit?  and  if  so,  how  has  this  established  its  claim  to  our  confidence? 
and  how  came  it  to  contradict  in  so  direct  a  manner  its  own  infallible 
utterances  of  former  times  ? 

It  is  evident  therefore  that,  to  say  no  more,  the  building  upon  the  basis 
of  tradition  is,  in  practice,  parti  v  something  not  feasible,  partly — so  far  as  it 
does  succeed — something  hurtful.  The  rule  "  that  all  tradition  is  to  be 
regarded  as  Apostolic,  of  which  at  the  present  time  the  origin  cannot  be 
positively  proved  from  other  sources"  (Bossuet),  must  be  pronounced  as 
hazardous  as  it  is  arbitrary.  Has  then  the  Church  remained  entirely 
without  any  contact  with  the  lying  spirit  of  the  world  ?  Has  tradition 
no  need  even  of  the  least  control  ?  And  where  is  this  latter  to  be  found, 
except  in  those  very  Scriptures  which,  in  favour  of  tradition,  are  con- 
tinually placed  in  the  background  ?  The  matter  is  not  mended  if  with 
Mohler  we  idealise  tradition  as  "  the  Word  still  resounding  and  living  on 
in  the  heart  of  the  faithful,"  whether  we  think  in  connection  with  it  of  a 
voice  like  that  of  the  testimonium  Sp.  Sancti,  in  the  sense  of  Calvin  ;  or 
of  the  Christian  consciousness,  as  Schleiermac  her  conceives  of  it.  For 
tradition  is  not  the  fruit  of  the  Consensus  of  all  upright  believers,  and  of 
these  alone  ;  but  of  the  Hierarchy,  whose  history  we  know.  Yea,  even  the 
former  itself  remains  always  liable  to  error,  and  must  find  an  unceasing 
corrective  in  the  word  of  the  Lord.  "  Our  Lord  called  Himself,  not  custom, 


ITS  VALUE.  219 

but  the  Truth,"  says  an  ancient  Father.80  And  if  it  is  still  repeated  that 
the  Protestant,  also,  appeals  for  the  authority  of  some  ecclesiastical  customs 
to  tradition  ;  we  reply  that  the  latter  ought  neither  to  be  rejected  nor 
neglected,  provided  only  we  never  overlook  the  fact  that  this  tradition  is 
never  in  such  a  case  to  be  de  jure  divino,  but  only  de  jure  humano.  Not  as 
an  infallible  authority  alongside  of,  or  even  above,  the  Scripture,  but  as  the 
venerable  witness  of  antiquity,  there  is  given  to  it  a  qualified  right  of 
decision — not  in  the  domain  of  ethical,  but  only  of  historical  and  ecclesi- 
astical questions — subject  always  to  the  inalienable  right  and  duty  of 
testing  all  things  by  the  utterance  of  God's  Word  in  Holy  Scripture.  With- 
out reserve  therefore  must  we  continue  to  reject  the  claim,  that  we  should 
be  in  any  way  bound — in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture — by  the  exegesis 
of  tradition.  While  this  demand  has  nothing  to  legitimate  it,  it  is  one 
moreover  which  it  is  impossible  to  satisfy.  The  promise  of  the  Romish 
priests,  "  I  will  never  receive  and  interpret  Holy  Scripture,  except  according 
to  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  fathers,"  naturally  calls  forth  the  query, 
where  in  the  world  this  "  Consensus"  is  to  be  found ;  and  a  satisfactory  answer 
to  this  question  we  still  wait  for.  For  all  these  reasons  we  take  no  other 
position  in  regard  to  the  tradition  of  the  Romish  Church,  than  that  which  the 
Lord  took  in  regard  to  the  tradition  of  the  Jews,21  and  apply  in  relation  to  it 
the  Apostolic  warning  against  the  tradition  of  men.22  Unquestionably  the 
quod  ubique,  semper,  ab  omnibus  creditum  est,  has  something  about  it  which 
awakens  within  us  reverence  and  admiration,  but  only  when  it  can  endure 
the  infallible  test  which  is  given  us  in  the  written  Word  of  the  God  of 
truth.  The  Scripture  of  the  Apostles,  particularly  that  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, has,  as  the_/y;w  et  nor  ma  veritatis,  not  only  the  priority,  but  also  the 
superiority,  over  every  other  voice ;  because  the  sacred  stream,  in  the 
immediate  vicinity  of  the  Source,  is  necessarily  much  purer  than  where, 
farther  on  in  its  course,  it  has  to  a  much  greater  extent  received  into  itself 
impure  elements. 

The  enduring  importance  of  this  question  strikes  us  at  once.  It  is  true 
the  difference  with  Rome  is  relatively  small,  as  compared  with  the  terrible 
conflict  which  the  Belief  in  Revelation  of  all  churches  must  wage  against 
Naturalism  and  Materialism ;  but  nevertheless  important  enough  to 
be — above  all  in  our  day — contested  with  zeal.  By  nothing  does  one 
play  more  successfully  into  the  hands  of  Rome,  and  all  that  leads  to 
Rome  or  tends  Romewards,  than  by  rebellion  against  the  authority  of 
God's  Word  in  Holy  bcripture. — The  same  is  the  case  with  regard  to 
Rationalism,  which  reveres  the  individual  human  authority — as  Rome  does 
the  collective  authority  of  men — as  the  highest  arbiter  in  the  domain  of 
truth.  It  is  impossible,  doubtless,  to  reduce  this  assumption  within  becoming 
limits  simply  with  an  authoritative,  "  It  is  written."  Not  as  a  book  of 
Law,  but  as  a  book  of  Life  alone,  can  Scripture  give  the  final  verdict. 
"  The  nearer  or  more  distant  connection  of  the  word  of  Scripture  with 
Christ  as  the  centre  of  our  faith,  affords  a  standard  by  which  we  can  dis- 

10  Dominus  noster  se  non  consuetudinem,  sed  veritatem  dixit. — TERTULLIAN. 
-'   Mark  vii.  8. 
Sz  Col.  ii.  8. 


220  CHRISTIAN    DOGMATICS. 

tinguish  what  is  more,  and  what  is  less,  essential  for  the  Christian  con- 
sciousness "  (Twesten).  But  ever  more  must  the  "  hear  Him "  be  re- 
peated and  responded  to  with  renewed  earnestness,  if  at  last  a  decisive 
weight  is  to  be  cast  into  the  trembling  scale  of  uncertainty  and  doubt. — As 
opposed  also  to  the  sickly  manifestations  of  a  cloudy  Mysticism,  the 
"  ad  Legem  et  Testimoniuni"  remains  the  only  medicine  which  will  perma- 
nently stand  the  test.  The  " vertiginosi  homines"  to  express  ourselves  with 
Calvin,23  "  quiSpiritus  Magistcrium  fastuos issime  obtendentes,  lectionem  oinncm 
respuunt"  must  ride  [as  a  ship]  unceasingly  over  the  gulfs  of  feeling  and 
imagination,  until  they  have  learnt  in  this  firm  ground  to  cast  their  anchor. 
As  opposed  to  the  boundless  negations  of  the  Naturalism  of  the  age,  we 
may  very  soon  expect  to  see  an  unbridled  reaction  towards  an  ignoble 
Mysticism,  unless  the  heads  and  hearts  of  men  are  by  a  timely  change  led 
back  to  the  obedience  of  faith  in  God's  Word,  as  contained  in  Holy 
Scripture.  But — how  then,  for  the  attainment  of  this  end,  are  we  to  make 
use  of  Holy  Scripture  ? 

Compare  K.  H.  SACK,  Vom  Worte  Go.'fes,  eine  Christl.  Verstandigung  (1825) ;  P. 
JALAGUYER,  Le  temoignage  de  Dieu,  base  de  la  foi  Chretienne  (1851) ;  J.  J.  VAN  Too- 
REXENBERGEN,  Treatise  on  the  authority  of  Scripture,  in  Ernst  en  Vrede  (1854),  p.  19, 
sqq.  On  Tradition,  the  Treatise  of  J.  H.  STUFFKEN,  in  the  \vorks  of  Teyler's  Theol. 
Society,  pt.  xxxiii.  (1840)  ;  J.  L.  JACOBI,  Die  kirchlithe  Lehre  von  der  Trad,  und  H.  S., 
i.  (1847),  not  completed;  the  Art.  Tradition  by  HOLTZMAN,  in  Herzog,  R.  £.,  xvi. ; 
and  K.  H.  HASE,  Handbuch  der  Protest.  Polemik  gegen  die  Rom.  Kath.  Kirche  (1862),  p. 
73.  m- 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

What  value  is  to  be  attached  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Roman 
Catholic,  the  Lutheran,  and  the  Reformed  Church  ? — The  place  of  Scripture  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  Modem  Theology.  —Nearer  definition  and  defence  of  the  Affectiones 
S.  S. — The  principle  of  Scripture  authority  frequently  exaggerated  or  not  recognised. — 
Historic  development,  ecclesiastical  determining,  Protestant  contesting,  Roman  Catholic 
reconstruction  of  the  doctrine  of  Tradition. — Whence  so  many  crypto-Catho  icising 
influences  in  the  Church  life  of  our  day,  and  how  best,  with  the  desired  result,  to  combat 
them? 


SECTION   XLI. — ITS   USE. 

The  high  value  of  Holy  Scripture  legitimates  and  defines  its 
use,  as  well  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Church  as  of  science.  For 
every  one  who  seeks  after  truth,  and  especially  for  a  Christian  of 
the  Reformed  Confession,  the  untrammelled  investigation  thereof 
is  equally  a  right,  a  duty,  and  a  blessing.  In  the  domain  of 
Christian  doctrine  the  Scripture  is  rightly  made  use  of,  when  it  is 
duly  tested,  interpreted  according  to  precise  rules,  employed  in 

a  CALV.,  fust.  1, 9.  i. 


ITS  USE.  221 

explaining,  purifying,  and  developing  Church  Confessions,  and  is 
consulted  as  a  guide  in  individual  Christian  philosDphic  investi- 
gation of  the  truth.  Only  with  such  a  use  of  the  Bible,  controlled 
and  rendered  fruitful  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  an  efficient  Apology  of 
the  Christian  belief  in  Revelation  to  be  expected,  and  the  Dogmatic 
Superstructure  rises  upon  the  foundation  thus  laid  and  completed. 

After  the  value  of  Scripture  has  been  duly  maintained,  the  question  as  to 
the  ecclesiastical  and  scientific  Use  of  the  same  is  naturally  in  place.  The 
former  flows,  as  a  matter  of  course,  out  of  the  polemic  which  we  were  just 
now  obliged  to  wage  ;  the  latter  is  of  supreme  importance  for  the  whole  of  the 
dogmatical  investigation  now  following,  and  is  precisely  here  in  place  where 
we  have  approached  the  boundaries  which  separate  the  Apologetic  basis 
from  the  Dogmatic  superstructure.  In  regard  to  the  former,  especially,  it 
seems  desiraole  to  follow  the  pathway  of  history. 

1.  i.    The  general   use  of  Scripture   in   the    Church    we   see    at   first 
permitted  without  any  restriction.      Together  with  the  Scriptures  of   the 
Old  Testament  those  of  the  New  were  openly  read  in  the  assemblies  of  the 
brethren,1  were  disseminated,  translated,  and  so  highly  valued  that  they 
were  prized  even  above  life,  while  those  who  gave  them  up  to  the  enemy 
received  the  name  of  Traditores*      The  Emperor  Julian  reproached  the 
Christians  with  allowing  even  women  and  children  to  read  their  sacred 
books.     Augustine,  Chrysostom,  Gregory  the  First,  expressly  commend  the 
reading  of  Scripture,  and  censure  the  neglect  thereof.       Even  when  the 
highest  value  was  attached  to  tradition,   the   use  of  Scripture  remained 
unrestrained.     It  is  true,  it  was  much  too  little  placed  in  the  hands  of  the 
newly  converted  peoples,  but  yet  in  the  beginning,  at  least,  of  the  Middle 
Ages,  was  still  forbidden  to  none. 

2.  Gradually,  however,  we  find  the  use  of  Scripture  first  neglected,  and 
then  restricted  within  narrower  limits.      The  prevalence  of   ecclesiastical 
Latin  in  the  public  worship  rendered  the  word  of  life  accessible  only  to  an 
ever  smaller  number.     Gregory   VII.    saw  a   beneficent   dispensation   of 
Providence  in  the  fact  that  the  Scripture,  by  being  partially  involved  in 
obscurity,  was  preserved  from  contempt  and  abuse.      Voices  like  those  of 
Anselm  and  Bonaventura,  which  still  commended  the  reading  of  Scripture, 
became  ever  more  rare.     Especially  did  distrust  and  opposition  increase 
on  the  part  of  the  Church,  when  Scripture  became  the  mighty  weapon  in 
the  hand  of  the  heretical  sects.      Innocent  III.  (1199),  the  Council  of 
Toulouse  (1229),  and  of  Tarragona  (1234),  prohibited  the  reading  of  the 
Bible,  and  that  of  Oxford  (1408),  with  an  eye  to  Wycliffe,  opposed  its 
translation  into  the  vernacular.     When,  however,  alter  the  discovery  of  the 
art  of  printing,  the  number  of  translations  increased,  and  when  an  Erasmus 
recommended  to  laymen,  also,  the  reading  of  the  Bible,3  and  the  Reforma- 

1  I  Tim.  iv.  13  ;  Rev.  i.  3. 

3  Compare  the  Article  Die  Martyrer  der  heil.  BUcher,  in  PIPER'S  Evang.  Kal,  (1859), 
p.  107,  sqq. 

'  Prol.  to  his  Paraphr.  N.  T, 


222  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

tion  found  its  main  support  in  the  unrestrained  use  thereof,  the  Council  of 
Trent  (1545 — 1563)  came  forth  with  its  emphatic  Veto.  The  ten  rules 
providing  lor  the  Index  librarian  prolubitontm,  had  also  in  part  their 
application  to  this  matter.  The  reading  of  heretical  translations  of  the 
New  Testament  was  forbidden  to  all;  the  use  of  the  Bible  in  the 
vernacalar  was  permitted  to  the  laity  only  under  the  written  sanction  of 
the  spiritual  superior,  and  to  the  Vulgate  with  all  its  imperfections  was  ac- 
corded the  right  of  final  decision  as  to  the  Church's  interpretation  of  the 
Scripture.  Yet  more  strict  became  the  prohibitive  measures,  after  Jansenism 
in  the  person  of  Quesnel  (1699)  recommended  the  use  of  the  Scripture,  and 
thereby  called  forth  the  famous  bull  Unigtnitits  (1713).  It  is  true  that 
later,  on  the  part  of  Pius  VI.  for  example,  milder  views  found  expression; 
but  the  increased  activity  of  the  Bible  Societies  called  forth  a  fresh 
reaction.  Pius  VII.  (1816),  Leo  XII.  (1824),  Gregory  XVI.  (1832), 
renewed  the  ecclesiastical  anathema  ;  and  very  soon  the  freer  spirit  of  many 
belonging  to  the  first  quarter  of  the  present  century — a  Leancler  van  Ess, 
Sailer,  Schrant,  and  others  —  continued  to  live  only  in  the  memory. 
Although  there  are  by  no  means  wanting,  in  our  day,  traces  of  a  zealous 
study  of  the  Bible  and  ardent  attachment  thereto,  on  the  part  of  learned 
laymen,  even  within  the  bosom  of  the  Romish  Church,4  the  spirit  of  the 
Council  of  Trent  still  remains,  taken  as  a  whole,  there  the  prevailing  one. 
The  Greek  Church  also,  at  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem  (1672),  prohibited  to 
the  laity  the  reading  of  the  Hible  ;  and,  in  point  of  practice,  stands  in  regard 
to  this  matter  even  below  the  Romish.  Is  it  strange  if,  in  the  presence  of 
some  episcopal  mandamuses,  (that  of  Malou  at  Bruges,  for  instance,  in  1853,) 
the  complaint  is  heard  on  the  part  of  the  Protestants,  "  Ecdesia  abhorret  a 
Bibliis"? 

3.  How  the  Reformation  has  reconquered  and  recommended  the  free  use  of 
the  Bible  is  universally  known.  The  grounds  which  are  brought  forward 
on  the  Protestant  side  for  the  unrestricted  use  of  the  Scripture,  are  derived 
partly  from  the  peculiar  character  of  Holy  Scripture,  as  the  trustworthy 
document  of  the  Divine  Revelation,  designed  for  all,  and  indispensable  for 
all ;  partly  from  the  precept  and  example  of  the  principal  servants  of  God 
and  believers  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New  ;5  and  partly  from  history 
and  experience,  which  gives  the  most  striking  testimony  as  to  the  blessing 
on  a  well-regulated  investigation  of  Scripture.  The  objections  brought 
against  it,  and  drawn  either  from  the  obscurity  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  or  from 
the  sad  divisions  fostered  by  the  different  views  of  individual  interpretation, 
or  from  the  less  chaste  and  moral  language  of  some  passages  of  the  Bible, 
are  pirtly  exaggerated,  partly  only  too  well-founded  ;  yet  even  in  the  latter 
case  they  simply  show  that  the  unlimited  examination  ought  to  be  a  highly 
cautious  and  at  the  same  time  well-regulated  one.  In  any  case  the  hurtful 
consequences  of  the  ecclesiastical  prohibition  of  the  Bible  are  much  greater 
than  those  of  its  unintelligent  use.  The  charge  of  essential  corruption  of  the 

4  See,  for  instance,  the  meritorious  translation  of  the  New  Testament  [into  Dutch]  by 
Dr.  S.  P.  LIPMAN,  second  edition,  1861  and  following  years. 

4  Josh.  i.  8  ;  Ps.  cxix.  9,  105  :  Isa.  xxxiv.  16  ;  Ilos.  viii.  12  ;  Luke  iv.  16 ;  John  v.  39; 
Acts  xvii.  ii  ;  Col.  iv.  16 ;  2  Tim.  iii.  15,  i5  ;  2  Pet.  hi.  15. 


ITS   USE.  223 

Bible  is  one  entirely  wanting  in  proof,  and  the  imperfections  of  the  Vulgate — 
to  which  the  erring  mother-Church  directs  her  sons — are,  for  all  who  are 
capable  of  judging  on  the  question,  fully  proved.  He  who  compares  the  diffi- 
culties placed  by  the  Church  in  the  way  of  reading  the  Bible,  with  its  tolera- 
tion and  favouring  of  the  rudest  superstitions,  can  hardly  explain  the  former 
in  any  other  way  than  on  the  ground  of  an  easily  intelligible  desire  for  self- 
preservation.  No  Biblicism,  or  idolatry  of  the  letter,  ever  indulged  in  by 
P  o  estants,  deserves  so  severe  a  reprimand  as  the  hierarchical  arbitrariness 
which  renders  applicable  to  Holy  Scripture  the  words  :  "Thou  shalt  not 
eat  of  this  tree,  lest  thou  die  "  (Perrone).  The  prohibition  of  the  Bible  is 
the  Achilles  heel  of  Roman  Catholicism  ;  the  free  investigation  of  Scripture 
the  bulwark  of  the  Evangelical  Church,  as  opposed  to  an  antiquated 
Ultramontanism  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  modern  Naturalism  on  the  other. 
As  opposed  to  this  last,  also,  it  cannot  be  too  strongly  stated  that  Holy 
Scripture  in  its  totality,  and  in  its  most  essential  parts,  must  ever  retain 
its  place  in  the  religious  life  of  Christendom,  and  that  the  Church  which 
has  in  principle  broken  with  the  Gospel  of  the  Scriptures,  has  thrown  away 
its  own  future. 

11.  As  far  as  the  Theological  use  of  Scripture  is  concerned — and  more 
particularly  in  the  service  of  Christian  Dogmatics — the  right  of  the 
Reformed  Theologian  needs  here  just  as  little  to  be  maintained,  as  the 
solemn  obligation  under  which  he  is  to  consult  it  needs  to  be  formally 
recalled  to  mind.  All  depends,  however,  on  the  spirit  and  method  in 
which  he  begins  to  consult  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  Let  us  distinguish  for 
the  sake  of  clearness — what  for  the  rest  will  not  be  separated  in  our 
further  treatment — the  Biblical,  Ecclesiastical,  and  Critical  Dogmatics ; 
and  let  us  ask  how  Holy  Scripture  is  to  be  used  in  connection  with  each  of 
these  three. 

i.  Biblical  must  Christian  Dogmatics  be,  in  this  sense,  that  it  concerns 
itself,  above  all  things,  to  know  the  Lord's  own  teaching,  and  that  of  His 
witnesses ;  and  strives  to  understand  this  in  the  true  spirit,  and  to  present  it 
in  its  just  connection.  To  this  end,  however,  it  is  necessary  that  Holy 
Scripture,  as  the  indispensable /r/;/^' ium  cogiwscendi,  should  be  duly  tested. 
We  must  not,  in  Dogmatics  either,  think  of  limiting  in  any  way  the  free 
examination  of  the  Scriptures ;  but  must,  in  the  interest  of  the  subject 
itself,  insist  so  much  the  more  that  the  criticism  should  be  a  legitimate  and 
really  unbiassed  one,  approaching  the  subject  without  any  preformed 
opinion.  As  Christian  Theologians,  we  must  have  cultivated  such  spirit — 
before  Dogmatics  can  think  of  beginning  its  work — both  in  respect  of  the 
words  and  the  facts  in  Holy  Scripture,  which  must  serve  as  stones  in  the 
building  up  of  our  edifice.  Of  how  great  importance,  also,  the  words  of 
Scripture  may  be  regarded,  is  evident  from  a  glance  at  such  Scripture  texts 
as  Acts  xv.  18  ;  xx.  28  ;  I  Tim.  iii.  16;  I  John  v.  7,  and  the  Articles  of 
Doctrine  not  seldom  based  upon  them.  But  also  in  regard  to  the  facts, 
especially  the  most  important  and  most  fiercely  assailed,  it  must  be  made 
apparent  whether  they  really  happened,  and  have  been  faithfully  recorded. 
And  not  this  alone.  Out  of  such  multiplicity  of  Religious  ideas  and 
utterances  recorded  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  a  cautious  criticism  will  have 
to  ascertain  whether  they  virtually  belong  to  the  sphere  of  Revelation 


224  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

properly  so  called,  or  whether  they  are  rather  personal  opinions,  to  which 
in  no  case  a  Prophetic  or  Apostolic  character  can  be  ascribed.  (Let  any 
one  think,  for  example,  of  the  mistaken  judgments  of  Job's  friends,  or  of 
the  philosophic  doubts  of  the  author  of  Ecclesiastes,  in  regard  to  life  and 
death.)  So  also  will  it  have  duly  to  distinguish  between  the  contents  of 
the  thoughts  and  exhortations  here  expressed,  and  the  particular  form  in 
which  they  are  given.8  And  not  less  between  that  which  was  prescribed 
to  a  definite  circle  of  individuals,  and  that  which  remains  of  high 
significance  for  all  in  all  time.7  Universal  rules  for  the  one  and  the  other 
of  these  cannot,  of  course,  be  given  here  ;  where  we  have  exclusively  to  do 
with  the  establishing  of  the  principle.  While  it  remains  ever  true  that 
each  pirt  of  the  Saving  Revelation  can  only  be  comprehended  in  the 
light  of  the  whole,  it  remains  equally  necessary  to  investigate  the  parts 
one  by  one,  if  we  are  to  satisfy  the  requirement  of  a  truly  scientific 
examination. 

That  the  Scripture  must  be  accurately  explained  before  Biblical  Dogmatics 
can  take  into  account  the  utterances  thereof,  is  self-evident,  and  does  not 
in  the  least  conflict  with  what  has  been  earlier  said  as  to  the  perspicuity  of 
Scripture  (§  xl.  2).  The  most  distinguished  Biblical  Theologians  have 
been  as  a  rule,  at  the  same  time,  excellent  Exegetes  (Heringa,  Vinke,  and 
others).  The  rules  for  the  grammatico-historic  interpretation  of  Scripture, 
here  presupposed  as  known,  must  thus  form  the  fundamental  law  and  basis 
of  all  exegetic-dogmatic  examination.  Only  let  no  one  suppose  that  that 
which  is  absolutely  indispensable  must  also  be,  without  anything  further,  in 
itself  wholly  sufficient.  For  a  truly  spiritual  understanding  of  God's  Word — 
and  who  has  greater  need  of  this  than  he  who  applies  himself  to  dogmatic 
science  ? — a  kind  of  knowledge  is  also  required,  different  from  that  which 
is  acquired  as  a  result  of  linguistic  and  historic  examination.  The  true 
exposition  of  the  Scripture  which  brings  forth  for  Dogmatics  the  most 
blessed  fruits,  must  be  above  all  a  Theological,  a  truly  Pneumatic  one  [under 
the  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God],  such  as  can  be  expected  only  of  the 
man  who  has  taken  a  deeper  glance  into  the  organic  whole  of  the  Saving 
Revelation ;  because  the  same  Spirit  which  speaks  to  us  in  the  Scriptures, 
dwells  in  him,  and  gives  him  to  understand  that  which  is  of  kindred  origin, 
by  the  power  of  inner  sympathy.  The  word  spoken  by  the  renowned 
Liicke,  now  more  than  fifty  years  ago  (1817),  has  here  its  application; 
"  that  the  Spirit  who  is  of  God  is  Himself  the  only  true  explainer  of  His 
words,  the  Angelus  interpres,  who  discloses  to  us  the  meaning  of  the  Scrip- 
tures." Naturally,  by  this  demand  for  a  purely  spiritual  apprehension  of 
Holy  Scripture,  it  is  not  by  any  means  intended  that  Exegesis  should 
for  ever  surrender  itself  into  a  state  of  bondage  to  Dogmatism,  to  inquire 
of  the  pillars  of  orthodoxy  in  what  way  one  is  allowed  to  apprehend  the 
Scripture,  and  in  what  not.  The  Romish  Church  may  forbid  to  explain  Scrip- 
ture in  any  other  sense  than  that  which  she  recognises  as  the  only  true  one  ; 
not  so  the  Protestant  Theologian,  who  has  to  base  his  Dogmatics  on  inde- 
pendent P^xegesis,  never  the  Exegesis  upon  a  perhaps  very  defective  eccle- 

•  See,  e.g.,  Luke  xi.  24 — 27  ;  Ephes.  vi.  12. 

*  Comp.  Acts  xv.  29  ;  I  Cor.  xi.  10,  sqq.,  and  other  places. 


ITS   USE.  225 

siastical  Dogmatics.  But  precisely  this  legitimately  free  Exegesis  will 
penetrate  the  more  deeply  into  the  sacred  documents,  in  proportion  as  it 
is  the  less  exclusively  occupied  with  the  letter  of  each  word,  nor  forgets 
the  admonition  of  the  Reformer;  " adferat  mentem  non  profanam,  non 
amantem  sop/iistices,  non  furentem  ambit  ione  et  studio ;  sed  timcntem  Dcum, 
amantem  veritatis,  qutzrentem  veras  consolationes  in  conversione,  et  volentcm 
Dcum  recte  invocare,  dole/item  etiam  propier  ecclesitz  vulnera,  quce  magis 
magisqm  lacerantur  ;  siepe  etiam  lectioni  miscentem  gemitus,  et  peteiitem  ut  a 
Deo  doceatur."  8  Only  in  this  way  is  it  possible  to  attain,  not  only  to  a  pure, 
but  also  to  a  thoroughly  Biblical  Dogmatics — one  which  bears  the  distinct 
impress  of  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord,  and  of  His  Apostles. 

2.  Biblical  Dogmatics  necessarily  passes  over  into  the  Dogmatics  of  the 
Church,  because  the  Scripture  is  differently  explained,  while  those  who  in 
the  main  interpret  it  in  one  sense  soon  agree  together  in  one  confession. 
The  examination  into  the  Dogmatics  of  a  particular  Church  is  naturally  of 
an  historico  critical  kind,  but  yet  it  is  not  possible  that  this  element  of  the 
groat,  whole  of  Christian  Dogmatics  should  duly  take  the  place  it  has  a 
right  to  claim,  unless  as  a  consequence  of  the  use  of  Scripture  conducted 
in  accordance  with  fixed  laws. 

Even  for  the  elucidation  of  the  Confession,  Scripture  affords  an  import- 
ant aid.  Not  always  does  the  latter  express  itself  equally  unambiguously 
and  clearly;  and  the  question  as  to  the  real  meaning  intended  by  those  who 
drew  it  up  is  sometimes  differently  answered.  But  this  at  least  may  be 
taken  for  granted;  the  Confession  itself  is  designed  to  be  nothing  else 
than  the  expression  of  a  certain  conviction  as  to  the  faith,  based  upon  a 
certain  conception  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  In  proportion  as  these  last 
are  thus  better  understood,  we  shall  the  better  succeed  in  entering  into 
the  spirit  and  tendency  of  the  Confession,  since  this  is  intended  only  to  be 
the  ecclesiastical  official  explanation  of  the  word  of  truth,  as  this  lives  in 
the  consciousness  of  a  particular  community.  The  Scripture  is  thus,  as 
it  were,  the  torch  which  must  light  us  in  our  walkinj  through  the  venerable, 
but  sometimes  dim,  temple-hall  of  the  Church's  doctrine. — Yet  more  :  for 
the  rectification  also  of  the  Church's  belief,  the  consulting  of  Scripture  is 
absolutely  necessary.  A  Church  which  truly  holds  fast  to  its  Confession  is 
bound — in  conformity  with  this  last,  and  with  the  spirit  of  Protestantism — 
to  eliminate  from  its  doctrine  every  element  which  is  in  positive  contradic- 
tion with  the  well-established  and  well-explained  utterance  of  God's  Word 
in  Holy  Scripture.  In  what  way  this  is  to  be  done  cannot  here  be  so 
much  as  hinted  at ;  but  the  principle  itself  was  given  utterance  to  thirty 
years  before  the  framing  of  the  Netherlands  Confession,  in  the  Confession 
of  Basle  (1534):  "This  our  Confession  we  subject  to  the  judgment  of 
Holy  Scriptuie,  with  the  promise  that  if  we  are  better  informed  out  of  the 
said  Scripture,  we  will  at  all  times  be  obedient  to  God  and  His  Word."  It 
must  be  careiully  guarded  against  lest — as  has  been  more  than  once  the 
case  of  late  years — the  seventh  Article  of  the  Netherlands  Confession 
should  be  used  as  a  lever  to  overthrow  the  whole  structure,  and  to  justify 


8  Melancthon,  Proem,  ad  Comm.  in  Ep.  ad  Rom, 


226  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

the  renouncing  of  obedience  to  God's  Word  in  Holy  Scripture.9  But  just 
as  much  must  we  be  also  on  our  guard  against  retaining  as  an  unalterable 
element  of  Confession  or  of  doctrine,  that  of  which  the  real  ground  cannot 
possibly  be  shown  in  God's  Word.  We  must  show  ourselves  in  the  first 
place  Christian,  in  the  second  Protestant,  and  only  in  the  third  Reformed 
Theologians — not  the  converse.  One  may  esteem  it  a  personal  happiness 
if  one  can  with  an  honest  Theological  conscience  stand  on  the  ground 
of  the  Confession  ;  but  the  honour  of  sound  Orthodoxy,  as  measured 
by  the  standard  of  the  Church  is — regarded  from  a  Christian  standpoint  — 
by  no  means  the  highest.  It  may  well  be  that  one  feels  himself,  on  the 
ground  of  Scripture  itself,  and  by  virtue  of  the  Protestant  principle, 
bound  in  conscience  to  differ  on  a  certain  point  from  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church.  Heterodoxy  in  such  a  case  is  not  to  be  regarded  at  once  as  heresy. 
— The  rectification  of  the  traditional  creed,  which  is  in  this  way  tested  by  the 
Word,  may  even  lead  to  its  further  development,  provided  that  it  is  tested  only 
by  means  of  Holy  Scripture.  Precisely  he  truly  holds  to  his  Confession  of  Faith, 
in  the  Evangelical-Protestant  sense  of  the  term,  who  recognises  in  the  Confession 
not  the  absolutely  perfect  form  of  his  religious  conviction,  but  that  which  may  be 
constituted  an  ever  more  perfect  form  of  it ;  and  w/w  seeks  to  atlain  to  this 
higher  perfection  by  an  ever  closer  attachment,  and  an  ever  deeper  subjection  of 
himself,  to  God's  Word  in  Holy  Scripture.  There  yet  lie  treasures  in  the 
gold  mine,  which  await  only  the  well-directed  spade  of  the  digger :  of  these 
Dogmatics  must  bring  at  least  some  part  to  light,  and  it  will  do  so  the 
better  after  each  new  and  profound  examination  of  the  Bible,  so  long  as 
the  maxim  is  found  to  be  true  :  "  Theologus  in  Scripturis  nascitur." 

3.  Christian  Dogmatics  must,  however,  be  not  simply  a  reproduction  of 
Bible  teaching,  and  of  the  Church  Confession.  It  must  be,  above  all,  an 
historico-critical  investigation,  a  systematic  presentation  of  the  subject-matter 
and  grounds  of  the  faith.  The  science  thus,  in  the  last  place,  manifests  a 
critical  character,  and  it  lies  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  that  Scripture  can 
least  of  all  be  set  aside  just  in  this  the  most  difficult  part  of  the  task  of 
Dogmatics.  On  the  contrary,  what  Cyprian  was  wont  to  say  when  he 
desired  to  consult  the  writings  of  Tertullian,  "  Da  mihi  magistrum,"  "Let 
us  hear  what  the  master  says,"  the  Christian  theologian  may  repeat  with  yet 
greater  justice  in  regard  to  his  Bible.  The  word  of  God  in  Holy  Scripture 
alone  affords,  not  only  a  sure  guide,  but  also  the  most  trustworthy  starting- 
point  for  Christian  thought.  Nothing  can  claim  to  be  regarded  as  revealed 
truth,  which  cannot  be  traced  back  in  some  way  to  the  Gospel  of  the 
Scriptures,  or  at  least  be  justified  therefrom;  but  every  hint  which  God's 
Word  in  Scripture  affords  us  concerning  His  plan  of  salvation,  may  at 

9  Confess.  Belgica,  Art.  vii. — "  Credimus  autem  sacram  hanc  Scripturam  perfectissime 
omnem  Dei  voluntatem  cornplecti,  et  in  ilia  abunde  ea  omnia  doceri,  quaecunque  ab 
hominibus  credi  necesse  est,  ut  salutem  consequantur.  Itaque,"  etc.  Compare  the  Confessio 
Helvetica  Secunda : — "In  Scriptura  sancta  habet  universalis  Christi  Ecclesia  plenissime 
exposita,  quaecunque  pertinent  cum  ad  salvificam  fidem,  turn  ad  vitam  Deo  placentem. 
Kon  alium  in  causa  fidei  judicem,  quam  ipsum  Deum  per  Scripturas  sacras  pronuntiantem, 
quid  verum  sit,  quid  falsum,  quid  sequendum  sit,  quidve  fugieiidum."  Similarly  does  the 
Confessio  Gallicana  express  itself.  Compare  also  the  sixth  Art.  of  the  Church  of  England, 
and  the  first  chapter  of  the  Westminster  Confession. 


ITS   USE.  227 

the  same  time  bring  us  on  the  trace  of  deeper  reflection.  "  Dogmatic 
thinking  must  not  merely  be  tested  by  Scripture,  and  not  only  not  conflict 
with  Scripture  ;  but  must  be  organically  fructified,  and  rendered  ever 
young  again,  out  of  the  fulness  of  Scriptural  teaching.  As  the  typical 
[representative]  work  of  the  Spirit  of  Inspiration,  the  Scripture  encloses 
within  itself  an  infinity  of  germs,  capable  of  a  continued  development ; 
and  while  every  dogmatic  system  grows  old,  the  Bible  remains  eternally 
young,  precisely  because  it  gives  to  us,  not  a  systematic  presentation  of 
truth,  but  the  fulness  of  the  truth,  which  offers  the  material  for  a  multi- 
plicity of  systems  "  (Martensen). 

It  must,  however,  be  not  only  a  believing,  but  also  a  truly  scientific 
use  of  Scripture,  to  which  the  dogmatist  devotes  himself.  Dogmatics 
pursued  in  a  critical  spirit  has  not  only  to  show  that  a  statement  is  Scrip- 
tural, but  also  that  it  is  intrinsically  true.  Its  task  is  thus  not  completed 
when  it  has  proved  that  a  certain  thing  is  in  the  Bible,  or  follows  in- 
contestably  from  its  utterances ;  but  only  when  it  has  made  manifest 
that  the  proposition  is  wholly  in  harmony  with  the  contents,  spirit,  and 
tendency  of  the  Saving  Revelation,  and  thus — according  to  the  Word 
of  Scripture — must  be  believed  by  us,  so  truly  as  we  are  men,  are 
sinners,  are  Christians.  For  this  purpose,  it  is  evident  that  no  reference 
to  a  single  isolated  text  of  Scripture  is  sufficient — in  this  way  anything 
might  be  proved — but  rather  a  use  of  Scripture  on  a  greater  and  wider 
scale  is  necessary,  like  that  to  which  Schleiermacher  exhorted  in  his 
day  ;10  although  conducted  in  a  wholly  different  manner  from  that  of  which 
he  has  given  a  precedent  himself.  By  how  much  more  the  Christian 
philosophic  thinking  is  in  this  sense  made  subject  to  the  discipline  of 
God's  Word  in  Holy  Scripture,  by  so  much  less  does  it  run  the  risk  of 
falling  into  error ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  in  the  champions  of  emanci- 
pation in  this  respect  the  word  of  Jeremiah  viii.  8,  9,  is  fulfilled.  In  order, 
on  the  sea  of  speculation  on  invisible  things,  to  suffer  no  shipwreck  upon 
the  otherwise  inevitable  rocks  of  Atheism  on  the  one  side,  and  Pantheism 
on  the  other,  which  deep  under  the  water  are  linked  together  as  by  a 
mysterious  root,  there  is  only  one  successful  precaution,  the  following  of 
the  compass  of  the  Word,  of  which  Scripture  is  the  depository.  Only 
where  this  guides  us  do  we  sail  into  a  secure  haven,  and  feel  presently 
again  under  our  feet  the  solid  land.  In  the  opposite  case  we  never  get 
further  than  to  an  ever-changing  Yea  and  Nay,  which — as  has  been  justly 
said — is  "  no  good  theology." 

Result :  The  true  Dogmatist  stands,  in  regard  to  the  document  of  Saving 
Revelation,  neither  in  the  relation  of  s'ave  nor  of  judge  ;  but  in  a  relation 
of  self-conscious  and  voluntary  dependence,  in  consequence  of  which  he 
penetrates  ever  more  deeply  into  the  sense  of  God's  written  Word,  and 
each  time  better  understands  it  in  the  light  of  the  Holy  Spirit 

4.  That  a  use  of  the  Bible,  such  as  has  been  recommended  in  the  fore- 
going paragraphs,  cannot  but  have  a  favourable  effect  upon  the  Apology  of 
the  Christian  belief  in  Revelation — here,  so  far  as  our  present  object  is  con- 


10  ChristUche  GlaubensIeJire,  §  xxvii.  3. 

Q   2 


228  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

cerned,  concluded  by  us — at  the  end  of  our  argumentation  scarcely  needs 
any  proof.  The  theology  of  the  nineteenth  century,  in  this  respect  entirely 
resembling  that  of  the  second,  bears  a  peculiarly  Apologetic  character.  There 
is  scarcely  any  theologian  of  any  eminence  in  our  day,  who  has  not  within 
the  last  few  years  contributed  more  or  less  valuable  materials  to  the  upbuild- 
ing of  the  Apology  of  the  Christian  faith.  To  this  Apology  all  the  sciences 
of  the  whole  theological  encyclopaedia  must  in  the  end  render  their  contri- 
butions, and  notably  Dogmatics  cannot  possibly  think  of  the  raising  of  its 
doctrinal  structure,  without  its  apologetic  basis  being  each  time  anew  investi- 
gated, consolidated,  and  maintained.  For  this  gigantic  work  itself,  however, 
as  well  as  for  its  basis,  a  careful  and  well-directed  use  of  the  Scripture 
remains,  I  do  not  say  the  only,  but  still  ever  the  first  requisite,  since  the 
truth  of  the  words  of  Crusius  is  on  each  occasion  strikingly  confirmed  by 
experience  :  "  As  the  sun  is  seen  by  his  own  light,  so  the  truth  shows  itself 
best  by  means  of  itself."  The  more  truth  is  known  in  its  whole  extent,  and 
as  a  whole,  in  the  light  of  Scripture  and  of  Scriptural  experience,  the  more 
speedily  will  the  unhappy  prejudice  against  Christian  Dogmatics  and  its  study 
disappear — a  prejudice  which  has  the  appearance  of  being  so  highly  scientific, 
and  yet  is  really  as  superficial  as  possible.  Only  let  it  never  be  forgotten 
that  there  is  no  Dogmatics  worthy  of  the  name  without  an  ever-renewed 
Apologetics ;  no  true  Apologetics  without  a  sound  criticism — even  though 
of  criticism  itself — but  most  of  all  of  him  who  applies  it.  Only  then  does 
the  path  of  the  investigation  lead  through  the  depths  to  the  heights  ;  and 
thus  only  does  Christian  Dogmatics  become,  in  the  noblest  sense  of  the 
word,  a  witness  to  the  faith  ;  and  the  clearer  conception  of  the  truth  brings 
forth  imperishable  fruits  in  the  life,  because  this  conception  itself  is  born  out 
of  the  depths  of  a  living  experience. 

Comp.  LEANDER  VAN  Ess,  Auszuge  iiber  d.  nothwend.  u.  niitzliche  Bibellesen,  aus  den 
Kirchenvatern  und  and.  Kathol.  Schriften  (1816) ;  A.  MONOD,  Lncile,  ou  la  lecture  de 
la  Bible  (1845)  ;  the  article  of  HERZOG,  R.  £.,  ii.,  Bibellesen  dcr  Laien  :  the  treatise  of 
KIJLSTRA,  De  Bijbel  nog  altijd  onmisbaar.  W.  in  L.  (1866),  i.  On  the  relation  of 
Christian  Dogmatics  to  Holy  Scripture,  C.  A.  AUBERLEN,  Das  Verhiiltniss  der  gegenw. 
Theol.  zu  der  PI.  S.,  Academic  Inaugural  Discourse  (1851) ;  a  paper  by  A.  T.  REITSMA, 
N.  Jbb.  (1860),  p.  f)\,seq.;  V.  D.  GOLTZ,  UeberdieuniverselleBedeutungderBibel^^). 
On  the  task  of  Exegesis  in  relation  to  Dogmatics,  J.  I.  DOEDES,  Hermeneutics  of  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Neiv  'lestament,  p.  33,  sqq.,  of  the  second  edition  of  the  original  work 
(1869). 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Differences  in  principle  as  to  the  use  to  be  made  of  the  Bible. — Has  the  Romish  Church 
always  remained  self-consistent  in  this  respect? — What  was  the  earlier,  and  what  the 
later,  judgment  of  Rationalism  as  to  the  unrestrained  use  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  ? — On 
what  grounds  is  this  examination  a  duty,  and  under  what  conditions  a  blessing  ? — Further 
explanation  of  objections,  especially  those  derived  from  modern  Naturalism. — History  of 
the  use  made  of  Scripture  in  relation  to  Dogmatics. — Scripture  interpretation  ad analogiam 
fidei? — Scripture  and  Church  doctrine. — Scripture  and  the  Christian  philosophy  of 
Religion.  — Scripture  and  the  Holy  Spirit  in  their  mutual  and  inseparable  union  in  the 
domain  of  Apologetics  and  Dogmatics. — Conclusion  and  transition. 


PART  II. 
THE  DOGMATIC  SUPERSTRUCTURE. 


CHAPTER  I. 

ON  GOD,  OR  THE  SOVEREIGN  OF  THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN. 

(THEOLOGY.) 


SECTION   XLII. — INTRODUCTORY  SURVEY. 

THE  Christian  dogmatical  examination  of  the  mystery  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God  ought,  especially  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
Evangelical  Reformed  Church  and  Theology,  to  begin  with  the 
doctrine  concerning  God.  In  this  treatment  regard  must  be  had 
separately,  first  to  the  Nature,  and  then  to  the  Works  of  God.  The 
humble  recognition  of  the  incomprehensibleness  of  God  for  the 
finite  understanding  must  serve,  not  as  an  obstacle,  but  as  a  stimulus 
and  guide,  in  the  way  of  this  investigation. 

Upon  the  Apologetic  Basis  already  laid  down,  we  now  proceed  to  raise 
the  Dogmatic  Superstructure;  from  the  outer  court  we  now  enter  into  the 
sanctuary  itself.  Ere  we  cross  the  threshold,  however,  a  threefold  question 
arises.  It  has  reference  to  the  flace,  the  Claim,  and  the  Limit  of  the 
investigation  which  awaits  us  in  this  chapter. 

i.  Must  indeed  the  first  Place  in  the  Christian  dogmatical  investigation 
be  conceded  to  the  doctrine  concerning  God?  (Theology)  Not  all  have 
given  or  do  now  give  an  affirmative  answer  to  this  question ;  some  have 


230  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

chosen  and  recommended  another  starting-point.  Melancthon,  in  his 
Loci,  for  instance,  started  from  the  point  of  man's  free-will ;  the  Heidel- 
berg Catechism,  with  the  doctrine  of  man's  misery ;  in  our  own  time  the 
Groningen  school,  with  Christ,  etc.  Yet  we  are  and  continue  to  be  of 
opinion  that  to  Theology,  in  the  more  restricted  sense  of  the  term,  belongs 
the  place  of  honour  in  the  dogmatic  investigation. 

First  of  all,  even  the  nature  of  the  case  favours  this  method  above  all 
others.  If  there  is  really  a  God,  then  He  can  be  nothing  less  than  the 
Alpha  of  all  our  science,  especially  in  this  special  domain.  Not  in  man, 
but  only  in  God,  is  found  the  standard  of  highest  truth.  All  other  main 
points  stand  in  relation  to  this  as  the  planets  to  the  sun  :  "  a  Jove  prin- 
cipiitm."  The  dictum  of  the  Modern  School,  "  Dim,  qui  cst  le  fonde- 
inent  de  tout,  nest  F explication  de  rim"  (Reville),  inevitably  abases  Him 
whom  it  wishes  to  exalt  to  the  throne.  He  who  is  the  foundation  of  all 
hings,  must  also  be  the  key  to  all,  or  He  is  not  indeed  the  personal,  the 
living  God. 

In  the  second  place,  the  word  and  spirit  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  indicate  to 
us  the  same  starting-point.  Of  those  of  the  Old  Testament,  expressions 
like  Psalm  xxxvi.  9  ;  Jer.  ix.  23,  24  ;  Job  xxviii.  28,  and  others,  here 
especially  come  under  our  attention.  According  to  Jesus'  own  word, 
(John  xvii.  3,)  in  the  knowledge  of  God  is  eternal  life;  a  life  which  is 
inseparably  one  with  the  highest  truth.  On  this  account  Paul,  also,  begins 
with  God  in  Acts  xiv.  17;  xvii.  26 — 28;  Rom.  i.  18,  sqq.  Dogmatics  does 
well  to  follow  this  example.  Symbolics  indeed  may  select  any  character- 
istic ecclesiastical  dogma  as  a  starting-point :  the  doctrine  of  the  Christian 
Faith  has  above  all  things  to  inquire  after  Him  from  whom  the  whole 
Revelation  of  Salvation  has  proceeded ;  and  to  m?.ke  Him  known  as  He 
has  revealed  Himself,  above  all,  in  and  through  Jesus  Christ.  When  God 
in  Christ  is  the  light  of  our  science,  we  shall  best  guard  against  the  danger 
pointed  out  by  Luther  in  the  words  :  "  Plurimum  periculi  in  eo  est,  si  in  eos 
LABYRINTHOS  divinitatis  te  involvas." 

In  the  third  place,  the  choice  of  this  starting-point  is  entirely  in  harmony 
with  the  peculiarity  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Church,  in  distinction 
from  that  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  The  dogmatic  standpoint  of  the  latter 
is  indicated  in  the  saying  of  Melancthon  :  "  Mysteria  diinnitatis  rectius 
adoraverimus,  quam  vestigaverimus ; "  that  of  the  former,  on  the  other 
hand,  in  the  order  of  thought  observed  in  Calvin's  Institutio,  which  in 
point  of  fact  begins  with  God.  The  sovereign  power  of  God,  and  man's 
absolute  dependence  upon  Him  in  the  work  of  salvation,  is  here  presented 
in  all  its  force  in  the  foreground,  with  a  concluding  protest,  directed  not 
so  much  against  a  Jewish  righteousness  of  works,  as  against  an  ethnical 
[heathenish]  idolatry  of  the  creature.  Rightly  therefore,  from  this  stand- 
point, does  the  Dutch  Confession  of  Faith  begin  with  the  recognition  of 
God.  Celebrated  Theologians,  moreover,  of  the  Reformed  Church — 
Schweitzer  Scholten,  and  others — have  chosen  this  as  their  starting-point. 
Even  single  illustrious  Lutheran  Theologians — Martensen,  for  instance 
— have  followed  the  same  plan.  It  is  indeed  one  excellency  the  more  in 
the  Dogmatics  of  the  Reformed  Church,  that  it  takes  that  which  is  most 
indubitable  as  a  basis  for  its  further  investigation. 


INTRODUCTORY  SURVEY.  231 

This  method  is  justified,  finally,  by  the  phenomena  and  wants  of  the  age. 
At  the  time  of  the  Reformation  it  might  appear  uncalled-for  to  begin  with 
Theology  properly  so  called,  because  in  this  domain  there  was  hardly  any 
controversy.  Later  Theological  systems  also  betray  here  and  there  a  certain 
horror  Dei,  an  inclination  rather  to  occupy  themselves  with  Anthropological 
or  Soteriological  questions,  than  with  Theological  questions  properly  speak- 
ing ;  and  certainly  this  is  fully  as  easy.  In  our  time,  however,  precisely  that 
which  is  most  difficult  comes  first  in  order ;  because  all  other  controverted 
questions  of  Dogmatics  are  undoubtedly  governed  either  entirely  or  in 
part  by  the  conception  we  form  of  God.  As  preaching,  so  Dogmatics  also, 
sees  itself  forced  back  upon  the  first  principles  of  doctrine.  Where  Atheism, 
Pantheism,  and  Naturalism  have  more  than  ever  become  a  terrible  power, 
we  have  no  choice  left  but  to  begin  with  the  doctrine  concerning  God. 
The  highest  that  the  science  of  faith1  declares — e.g.,  concerning  sin  and 

1  In  speaking  of  the  s:ience  of  faith.,  we  mean  not  simply  a  science  of  which  the  truth 
revealed  by  faith  is  the  object,  but  of  which  the  life  of  faith  forms  the  source  and  root,  or 
if  you  will,  the  principle  and  starting-point.  We  indicate  therefore  by  it,  thai  the  true 
Christian  can  come — by  the  way  of  a  living  faith  in  Christ — to  a  knowledge  and  certainty  of 
God  and  of  Divine  things,  which  is,  in  its  nature,  second  to  no  other  ;  and  for  this  reason 
may  with  the  most  perfect  right  bear  the  name  of  science,  provided  only  this  word  be  under- 
stood in  a  sense  somewhat  wider  than  that  in  which  it  is  ordinarily  used  by  the  Empiric 
philosophic  school.  In  maintaining  this  position  we  stand  entirely  on  the  ground  of  Holy 
Scripture  ;  which  opposes  believing  not  to  knowing,  but  always  to  seeing  and  to  doubting, 
and  affords  us  a  number  of  most  sublime  utterances  of  an  assurance  of  faith,  of  which  the 
force  must  be  indescribably  weakened,  if  they  are  to  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  "  I  suppose 
it  indeed,  but  do  not  know  it."  In  particular,  we  appeal  to  the  utterances  of  Jesus  Him- 
self (Matt,  xiii.  II  ;  John  viii.  32)  ;  of  Paul  (Ephes.  iii.  4;  2  Tim.  i.  12  ;  Col.  ii.  3,  8; 
compare  I  Cor.  ii.  12  ;  xii.  8;  xiii.  2;  Philipp.  i.  9,  10,  and  many  other  places);  of 
John  (i  John  ii.  20,  27  ;  v.  13)  ;  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (Heb.  xi.  3);  yea,  to  the 
whole  polemics  of  the  Apostolic  Epistles  ;  which,  however,  is  dominated  throughout  by 
the  opposition — not  between  believing  and  knowing,  but  between  a  believing  and  an 
unbelieving  science.  Among  the  Fathers  we  see,  inter  alios,  a  Clemens  Alexandrinus, 
Origen,  Athanasius,  Augustine,  Chrysostom,  and  others,  espouse  the  same  view,  after- 
wards so  powerfully  set  forth  by  an  Anselm  in  his  well-known  maxim,  [credo  ut  intelligam,\ 
which,  rightly  understood,  is  also  ours.  (See  sections  ii.  iii.  xvi.  xxxiv.)  The  assertion 
that  the  personal  Christian  belief,  to  whatever  degree  raised,  can  never  become  a  true 
knowledge,  is,  in  our  opinion,  favoured  no  more  by  any  of  these  testimonies  than  by  the 
experience  of  the  spiritual  life  of  the  Church  of  the  Lord.  The  Christian  faith  impels 
indeed  to  the  knowledge  of  things  which  are  given  to  us  of  God  in  Christ  ;  and  conducts 
thereto,  because  it  raises  us  to  the  most  intimate  communion  with  the  Faithful  One  Him- 
self, in  this  communion  places  us  in  a  position  for  the  spiritual  contemplation  (intuition)  of 
the  highest  truth,  and  gives  us  by  experience  to  feel  its  power,  from  which  we  draw  con- 
clusions with  perfect  justice  as  to  the  efficient  cause.  If  experience  is  in  every  other 
domain  a  source  of  knowledge,  wherefore  should  it  not  be  so  here?  Because  it  is  attained  to 
by  no  one  who  has  not  begun  with  faith  ?  Precisely  on  this  account,  therefore,  do  we 
speak  of  a  science  of  faith,  in  distinction  from  the  natural  sciences  and  the  remaining 
sciences  of  mind,  and  should  in  vain  look  for  another  name, — if,  at  least,  we  would  con- 
tinue to  maintain  the  independent  character  of  theological  science, — whereb)'  its  peculiar 
nature,  as  distinguished  from  every  other,  is  satisfactorily  indicated.  For  surely,  no  one 
will  wish  to  term  it  the  science  of  ignorance,  and  still  less  to  extol  it  as  the  science  of 
knowledge.  Or  shall  we  henceforth  speak  of  it  only  as  the  science  of  religion,  and  suppose 
that  its  superstructure  can  be  more  firmly  raised  upon  an  unstable  anthropological 
foundation  ?  For  if  all  knowledge  of  God  is  altogether  impossible,  then  all  theology 
(A6-y<K  irepl  rod  0coO)  becomes  an  absurdity.  If  this  consequence  is  to  be  rejected  m 
principle,  we  for  our  part  see  no  other  course  open  to  us,  but — with  Ulrici  and  others — 
to  regard  duly  developed  belief  as  "a  knowing  in  the  wider  sense  of  the  term"  and  to 


232  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

grace — remains  for  the  majority  an  absurdity,  so  long  as  Christian  Theism 
has  not  been  well  determined.  Only  by  means  of  a  well  grounded  Theology 
can — in  the  great  Christological  and  Soteriological  questions — the  "  Paul, 
thou  art  beside  thyself,"  be  for  ever  reduced  to  silence. 

2.  Where  we,  for  this  reason,  give  the  first  place  in  this  investigation  to 
the  doctrine  concerning  God,  we  have  to  satisfy  the  Claim  made  upon  us 
to  fix  our  attention  as  well  on  the  Nature  as  on  the  Works  of  God,  the 
one  as  well  as  the  other,  of  course,  ad  major  em  Dd  gloriam.  The  only 
question  is,  which  of  these  two  must  stand  first  in  order.  It  might  perhaps 
appear  optional  whether  we  should  speak  first  of  God's  Works,  thence  to 
rise  to  the  contemplation  of  the  Divine  Nature.  Thus  Schleiermacher, 
for  instance,  treats  of  the  doctrine  of  Creation  and  Preservation,  even  that 
of  Angels  and  Devils,  before  he  enters  upon  the  question  of  the  Divine 
perfections.  But  how  shall  we  rightly  understand  and  appreciate  God's 
works,  unless  acquaintance  with  His  nature  holds  forth  the  torch  for  us  in 
this  examination  ?  Moreover,  man  himself  ought  certainly  to  be  numbered 
first  among  the  works  of  God,  and  thus  the  whole  of  Anthropology 
ought  to  be  investigated  before  we  could  speak  of  Theology.  If  we  do 
not  desire  to  do  this,  we  must — however  closely  connected  Anthropology 
and  Theology  may  be — adopt  the  opposite  method.  The  sun  glitters  in 
every  drop  of  dew;  but  if  we  will  learn  the  sun's  nature  aright,  we  shall 
do  well  to  turn  the  eye  first  to  the  heavens,  and  only  afterwards  to  the 
dewdrop,  and  not  the  converse.  God's  nature  is  manifest  in  His  works, 
but  higher  than  the  work  stands  the  nature ;  from  the  higher  must  we 
consequently  proceed,  in  order  to  find  it  reflected  in  the  lower.  That,  in 
the  contemplation  of  the  one  as  of  the  other,  the  deepest  reverence, 
together  with  the  most  sacred  interest,  should  lead  us,  is  a  claim  of  which 
•we  here  scarcely  need  to  be  reminded.  Nothing  indeed,  it  has  been  truly 
said,  can  exceed  in  interest  the  doctrine  concerning  God. 

3.  At  all  times,  however,  we  have  in  this  investigation  to  keep  before 

maintain  that  the  most  certain  belief  upon  this  point  leads  to  the  clearest  knowledge.  The 
stindpoint  taken,  among  others,  by  a  Vine'.,  Naville,  Twesten,  Nitzsch,  Dorner,  J. 
Miiller,  Martensen,  and  others,  is  also  ours,  where  we  continue  to  speak  of  a  science  of 
faith.  Not  as  in  the  Hegelian  philosophy  do  we  let  the  Christian  faith  as  the  lower  form 
pass  over  into  higher  spheres  of  knowledge  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  we  seek  to  raise  it  to  a 
spiritual  certainty  and  knowledge  which  never  repudiates  its  origin  and  character,  and 
presently — where  it  discovers  its  limits — leads  to  an  ever  firmer,  but  at  the  same  time  ever 
more  reasonable,  believing.  In  this  way  alone  is,  in  our  opinion,  a  truly  scientific 
theology — yea,  a  philosophy  of  the  Christian  Revelation — to  be  spoken  of.  We  do  not 
therefore  deny  the  distinction  between  this  science  and  exact  knowledge  in  a  lower 
domain.  But  we  doubt  whether  this  dis  inction  justifies  us  in  rejecting  the  description  we 
have  given  of  Christian  Dogmatics  ;  and  anticipate  from  the  sharp  opposition  between 
believing  and  knowing  much  greater  harm  than  is  produced  even  by  the  confounding  of 
the  two.  On  this  whole  question,  see  F.  FABRI,  Briefe  i;e»en  den  Materialisnius,  2  Aufl. 
(1864),  pp.  164—  190  ;  L.  SCHOEBERI.EIN,  Das  Wesen  und  die  Gewissheit  da  Glaubens,  in 
the  Beweis  des  Gl.  (1866),  p.  177,  sqq. ;  H.  MARTENSEN,  Glauben  und  Wissen,  in  the 
Jahrb.  fiir  deutsclie  Tlieol.,  xiv.  3,  p.  396,  sqq.  ;  J.  M0LLER,  Dogmatische  Abhandl.  (1870), 
pp.  I — 42  ;  H.  R.  FRANCK,  System  der  Chr.  Geiuisskdt  (1870) ;  and  the  discourse  of 
G.  J.  D.  MARTENS,  Htt  Geloof  aan  GoJs  Openbaring,  het  levensbeg.  der  Godgeleerdh. 
(1870).  Compare,  also,  VAN  OOSTERZEE'S  Treatise,  "  (h'er  de  Christ.  Theol.,  de  Wcten- 
schap  des  Gcloofs"  in  the  Tydschrift  voor  Ktrk  en  Theol.  (1871),  ii.,  p.  8l,  sqq.  (Trans- 
lated in  the  Prcaclier's  Lantern,  1873,  i.,  ii.) 


INTRODUCTORY  SURVEY.  233 

us  the  Limit  which  is  set  to  all  our  thinking  and  speaking  on  Divine 
things,  by  the  fact  that  God  is  for  man  absolutely  incomprehensible. 
"Dens,"  in  the  words  of  Albertus  Magnus,  " cognosd  potest,  comprehendi 
non  potest."  This  incomprehensible  character  of  the  Deity,  recognised 
and  confessed  by  the  most  illustrious  servants  of  God,2  need  nevertheless 
be  no  insuperable  obstacle  in  the  way  of  our  investigation.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  is  natural,  reasonable,  yea,  on  more  than  one  account  beneficial ; 
and,  as  it  will  very  soon  appear,  by  no  means  the  same  as  being  abso- 
lutely beyond  the  sphere  ot  our  knowledge.  Rather  may  the  conviction  of 
this  truth  serve  as  a  guide,  yea,  even  as  a  stimulus,  to  us,  on  the  way 
which  opens  before  us.  Mountain  summits  have  unquestionably  a  tendency 
to  make  one  dizzy,  but  at  the  same  tiaie  they  have  something  about  them 
which  attracts  ;  and  to  this  height  we  must  not  fail,  if  possible,  to  rise,  in 
order  that  from  thence  a  full  view  of  the  truth  may  be  obtained.  "  Hac 
sum  ma  delicti"  says  Tertullian,  "  nolle  agnoscere,  quern  ignorare  non  possis." 
"This  is  the  heaviest  of  offences,  not  to  be  willing  to  recognise  Him, 
whom  you  cannot  be  ignorant  of."  Provided  only  we  do  not  venture  to 
decide  what  the  Word  of  Revelation  has  wisely  left  undecided,  and  in 
many  cases  content  ourselves  with  that  "  learned  ignorance  "  which  is  in 
no  one  less  to  be  disapproved  of  than  in  the  Christian  theologian.  Before, 
therefore,  we  proceed  a  step  further  in  the  way  of  our  investigation,  the 
great  truth  proclaimed  in  i  Cor.  xiii.  9 — 12,  must  be  emphatically  recalled 
to  mind ;  and  that  not  in  the  interests  of  religion  alone,  but  in  those  of 
science  also,  to  which  all  illusions  are  sure  in  the  end  to  prove  fatal. 
It  must  become  not  merely  reconciled  to  the  incomprehensibleness  of 
God,  as  to  a  misfortune  which  one  cannot  change,  but  as  to  something 
Divine,  which  one  would  not  change.  This  is  precisely  the  distinction 
between  the  sublime  Mysteries,  properly  so  called,  into  which  the  Chris- 
tian faith  will  introduce  us,  and  those  of  Heathen  antiquity.  To  the 
adepts  of  the  latter  was  promised  that  they  should  understand  and  fathom 
what  they  had  never  before  so  much  as  contemplated :  we,  on  the  contrary, 
are,  even  at  the  first  step,  reminded  that  there  are  limits  which  cannot 
be  passed.  Of  comprehending,  there  can  in  this  case  be  no  thought ; 
the  question  is  simply  whether  it  is  possible  to  know  anything  of  God ; 
and,  above  all,  whether  there  is  solid  ground  for  believing  in  God. 

Compare  the  literature  brought  forward,  part  i.,  section  xxi.  ;  CALVIN,  Inst.,  i.  I  ;  A. 
ScmvEi'iZER,  Ckristliche  Glaubenslehre,  i.,  §  viii. ;  EBRARD,  Rcf.  Do»m.t  i.,  §  Ixi.  ; 
MARTENSEN,  /.  /.,  p.  91.  On  the  supreme  importance  of  the  doctrine  concerning  God, 
J.  I.  DOEDES,  Inlrid.  tot  de  leer  van  God  (1870),  i.,  p.  40,  sqq. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Is  the  question  as  to  the  starting-point  for  the  Christian  dogmatical  investigation  one  of 
especial  importance? — How  can  one  proceed  from  the  doctrine  of  God,  until  he  has  risen 
to  the  conception  of  God? — The  characteristic  differences  of  the  Reformed  and  the 
Lutheran  Dogmatics  in  this  respect  more  nearly  proved  and  explained. —  *\  hence  so  great 
reluctance  to  begin  the  dogmatical  examination  with  the  doctrine  concerning  God? — The 
testimony  of  Scripture,  the  Church,  and  of  constant  Christian  experience  as  to  the  incom- 

Erehensibleness  of  God  ? — Why  cannot  man  possibly  give  up  thinking  about  God,  although 
e  knows  beforehand  that  he  will  come  to  a  limit  of  thought? — Can  the  importance  of  the 
e^t  TOU  OeoO  (Theology)  ever  be  too  highly  rated? 

2  Job  xxjLvi.  26  ;  Psalm  cxxxix.  6  ;  Rom.  xi.  33. 


234  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 


FIRST  DIVISION. 

THE    NATURE     OF     GOD. 

SECTION  XLIII. — THE  KNOWLEDGE   OF  GOD. 

FROM  the  incomprehensibleness  of  the  Divine  Essence,  it  by  no 
means  follows  that  He  is  absolutely  beyond  the  sphere  of  our  know- 
ledge. The  sanctuary  of  the  knowledge  of  God  is  for  man  on  earth 
just  as  little  closed,  as  without  limit  accessible.  Only  here  the  dis- 
tinction must  be  clearly  made  between  a  complete  and  a  sufficiently 
pure  knowledge  of  God ;  and  never  must  it  be  forgotten  that,  as 
the  sun  by  its  own  light,  so  God  can  be  known  and  contemplated 
by  the  eye  of  faith,  solely  in  the  light  of  His  own  revelation. 

1.  In  the  inquiry  as  to  the  Nature  of  God,  the  question  before  all  is  :  Is 
a  true  knowledge  of  God  possible  for  man  here  on  earth  ;  and,  if  so,  in 
what  way  is   it  attainable  ?     As  to  so  many  other  questions,  so  to  this 
also,  different  answers  have  at  all  times  been  given.     In  the  Middle  Ages 
it  even  gave  rise  to  a  not  unimportant  controversy  between  the  Thomists 
and  the  Scotists.     To  this  day,  opinions  are  far  from  being  unanimous ; 
and  it  is  of  importance  to  listen  to  these  different  voices,  before  we  express 
our  own  opinion. 

2.  That  God  is  incomprehensible,  has  been,  in  accordance  with  Holy 
Scripture,  recognised  and  confessed  by  the  Christian  Church  of  all  ages.1 
The  more  surprising  therefore  appears  the  assertion  made  in  some  quarters, 
that  God  even  on  this  side  the  grave  can  be  fully  known.     We  hear  it  on 
the  part  of  Eunomius  in  the  Arian  controversy;2  while  Aetius  asserted  he 
could  comprehend  Him  just  as  well  as  the  stone  or  the  wood  which  he 
held    in   his    hand.8      While  they    sought  by  such  assertions  to    destroy 
the  force  of  the  constant  appeal  of  their  opponents  to  the  unsearchable- 
ness  of  God,  we  later  see  Mysticism  arrive  by  a  totally  different  way  at 
the  same  conviction.     Through  the  life  of  love  in  God  they  asserted  that 
they  could  contemplate  Him  immediately  and  clearly,  in  His  own  light. 
Thus   J.   Gerson  (f   1429)  maintained  the  possibility  of  a  knowledge  of 
God,  to  which  he  gave  the  peculiar  name  of  "  Thcologia  affccttia;"  and 
Tauler   (t   1361)   taught   that   the   soul,  by  wholly  losing  itself  in  God, 

1  See  Justin  Martyr,  Afol.  2,  6 ;  Minucius  P'elix,  c.  1 8,  and  many  other  places. 
a  Epiph.  Hatr.,  76,  4.  *  Socr.  hist.  EccL,  iv.  7. 


THE   KNOWLEDGE  OF  GOD.  235 

became  so  Divine  that,  if  it  rightly  expressed  itself,  it  would  regard 
itself  as  equal  to  God.  Upon  such  heights  of  intuition  and  contem- 
plation all  clouds  must,  as  it  would  seem,  at  last  vanish.  Since  Mysticism 
was  by  no  means  free  from  a  Pantheistic  leaven,  we  cannot  be  surprised 
presently  to  hear  Spinoza  assert  that  he  had  an  equally  clear  conception 
of  God  as  of  a  triangle.  It  was  consequently  entirely  in  the  spirit  of  this 
writer  when,  in  the  former  half  of  the  present  century,  speculative 
philosophy  promised  to  lead  up  its  disciples  to  the  absolute  knowledge  of 
the  Divine  substance.  It  asserted,  it  is  true,  that  God  knew  Himself,  and 
arrived  at  self-consciousness,  only  in  the  consciousness  of  man.  From  this 
standpoint  one  could  thus,  as  it  is  said,  not  only  know  God,  but  fathom, 
comprehend,  genetically  develop  Him.  "  Men  have  formed  for  them- 
selves a  conception  of  the  so-called  Absolute,  or — what  is  the  same  thing 
— an  absolute  conception,  in  which  is  included  all  that  exists.  Beside 
this  Absolute,  there  can  be  nothing  which  does  not  belong  to  Him  ;  our 
thinking  is  His  thinking,  our  being  His  being.  For  the  existence  thereof 
there  is  no  need  of  proof;  for  it  is  precisely  existence  itself,  the  be-all  and 
the  whole  of  being.  The  conception  of  the  same  proves  and  verifies 
itself,  for  in  Him  existence  and  thinking  are  identical ;  the  conception 
thereof  is  His  existence,  consequently  truth  itself.  The  development  and 
realisation  of  this  conception  is  the  self-development  and  self-realisation  ot 
God,  and  at  the  same  time  the  origination  and  history  of  the  world." 
(Uirici.) 

3.  It  is  no  more  than  natural  that  such  wretched  self-deception,  com- 
bined with  the  most  ridiculous  self-idolatry,  should  not  merely  awaken 
undisguised  contempt,  but  should  also  call  forth  the  most  powerful 
reaction.  As  well  in  the  objective  as  the  subjective  sense  of  the  word, 
the  absolute  unknowableness  of  God  has  been  proclaimed  by  many  in 
earlier  and  later  times.  In  earlier  times  by  those  who  asserted  God  did 
not  even  know  Himself,  and  consequently  could  not  be  known  by  us. 
Thus,  for  instance,  John  Scotus  Erigena  : 4  "  Deus  nescit  se  quid  est,  quia 
non  est  QUID  ;  incomprchensibilis  quippe  in  aliquo,  et  sibi  Jpsi  et  omni  intcl- 
Icctui."  By  banishing  the  notion  of  "  quidditas"  definite  properties, 
from  the  idea  of  God,  they  made  of  God  merely  abstract  indefinable 
Being.  The  philosophers  of  later  times  also — Schelling  and  others — here 
claim  our  notice,  who  see  in  the  Divine  Being  a  sort  of  dark  primary 
substance  (Urgrund),  not  fathomed  by  Himself,  nor  indeed  fathomable. 
It  is,  however,  manifest  that  the  supposition  of  such  an  Urgnind  is  in 
diametrical  opposition  to  the  idea  of  an  absolute  and  perfect  Being.  This 
conception  itself  partakes  more  of  a  mythological  heathen  character,  than 
of  a  sound  speculative  and  ethical  one.  If  God  is  really  the  infinitely 
perfect  Spirit,  and  not  simply  a  blind  power,  He  can  possess  no  sides 
which  are  for  his  own  vision  absolutely  inscrutable ;  but  must  be,  for  Him- 
self'at  least,  perfectly  transparent. 

Nevertheless,  God  might  be  able  perfectly  to  know  Himself,  without 
being  in  truth,  on  that  account,  knowable  for  us.  Most  positively  is  this 
latter  supposition  denied  by  the  Scepticism  which  passes  by  the  highest 

4  Dedivis.  Nat.,  ii.  c.  28. 


236  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

questions  of  life  with  a  "  Que  sais-je  ?  "  of  mockery  or  of  melancholy  on 
the  lips.  If  by  Scepticism  is  understood  a  systematic  fostering  of  doubt 
where  no  reason  for  doubting  exists  ;  then  certainly,  after  all  that  has  been 
said  (§  §  ii.,  xxii.,  xxix.),  a  formal  refutation  of  this  mode  of  regarding  things  is 
least  of  all  to  be  expected  in  this  place.  "La  discussion  n'est  pas  le 
remede  a  cette  maladie  "  (Naville).  But  there  are  also  not  wanting  others, 
whom  no  one  can  reckon  among  sceptics  properly  so  called,  and  who  yet 
assert  that  there  can  be  absolutely  no  question  of  science  in  relation  to  God, 
but  only  of  faith,  by  no  means  to  be  confused  with  science.  And  cer- 
tainly, in  the  sense  in  which  the  Empirical  school  speaks  of  science,  to 
denote  an  objectively  certain  knowledge  arrived  at  by  the  way  of  obser- 
vation and  reasoning,  we  shall  do  better  not  to  use  the  word  here.  But 
wherefore  thus  limit  the  idea  of  science,  not  without  arbitrariness  and  to 
our  own  detriment  ?  If  only  that  is  to  adorn  itself  with  this  name  which 
has  been  proved  out  for  each  one,  and  is  on  this  account  absolutely 
beyond  doubt,  the  domain  of  science  will  certainly  very  soon  appear  of  much 
less  extent  than  is  usually  asserted.  "  If  we  strike  out  [irom  science] 
all  which  is  in  reality  only  a  scientific  faith,  science  is  shrivelled  up  into  a 
little  residuum  of  propositions,  whose  contents  are  so  scanty  and  insignifi- 
cant as  scarcely  to  repay  the  trouble  of  investigation "  (Ulrici).  For  us 
the  question  is  whether  an  accurate,  well-founded,  and  well-ordered  know- 
ledge is  possible,  in  whatever  way  attained  to  (Part  I.  §  iii.) ;  and  if  this 
question  can  be  answered  in  the  affirmative,  it  is  in  a  certain  sense  in- 
different whether  this  knowledge  be  stamped  with  the  name  of  Science  or 
not.  To  a  negative  answer,  however,  to  the  question  as  thus  put,  we  are 
by  no  means  disposed  to  come.  What  lies  beyond  the  sphere  of 
perception  through  the  medium  of  the  senses  is  not  therefore  to  be 
excluded  from  the  domain  of  spiritual  experience  and  intellectual  reasoning. 
Without  preliminary  faith  there  can  here  certainly  be  no  possibility  of 
knowing,  just  as  reciprocally  all  believing  is  based  upon  an  inner  con- 
sciousness. But,  according  to  the  united  testimony  of  Scripture  and 
Experience,  there  is  born  in  turn  from  living  faith  an  equally  clear  as 
accurate  knowledge,  of  no  lower  degree  of  certainty  in  its  own  sphere 
than  that  which  is  elsewhere  arrived  at  by  the  way  of  observation  or 
reasoning.  What  through  faith  we  understand?  is  by  no  means  the  fruit  of 
a  bare  supposing,  or  highly  probable  conjecturing,  a  being  almost  certain  : 
the  believer  knows  not  only  that,  but  also  truly  what,  and  upon  what 
ground,  he  believes.  Here  is  knowledge  just  as  certain  as  that  which 
the  astronomer  has  gleaned  with  his  telescope  from  the  depths  of  the 
heavens ;  since  faith  is  as  the  telescope  by  means  of  which  the  Infinite  is 
brought  within  the  field  of  vision  for  our  spirit's  eye.  Even  if  the  absolute 
incapacity  of  the  human  reason  for  rising  above  a  finite  sphere  had  been 
in  all  ages  victoriously  demonstrated,  there  would  not  any  the  more  follow 
necessarily  from  this  the  unknowableness  of  God,  so  long  as  the  reality  'of 
an  historical  Revelation  of  Salvation  remains  an  established  fact.6  "That 
faith  is  not  the  faith  of  the  Gospel,  which  regards  the  object  of  religion — 
God  in  Christ — as  unknowable  "  (Dorner).  But  even  apart  from  this  we 

*  Heb.  xi.  3.  6  John  xiv.  8,  9. 


THE   KNOWLEDGE   OF  GOD.  237 

continue,  in  accordance  with  Scripture  and  the  Netherlands  Confession 
of  Faith,  to  maintain  the  reality  and  soundness  of  a  knowledge  of  God  by 
the  light  of  nature  ;  in  accordance  also,  as  opposed  to  the  Socinian  view, 
with  the  leading  divines  of  the  Dutch  Church — Voetius  for  example,  who 
mentions  even,  among  the  more  refilled  forms  of  Atheism,  the  phenomenon, 
Si  quis  ncgat  lumen  naturce  ej usque  certitudinem,  qua  omnis  cognitionis  rcrum, 
tarn  divinarum,  quam  humanarum,  est  prinripium?  Where  this  is  not 
acknowledged,  there  not  only  do  the  highest  aspirations  of  the  human 
mind  and  spirit  remain  in  their  profoundest  depths  unexplained,  but  there 
is  proclaimed  in  principle  an  irreconcilable  difference  between  believing 
and  knowing,  which  in  its  consequences  can  lead  only  to  the  incalculable 
injury  of  both,  yea,  of  the  whole  of  Christian  theology.  "A  living  God, 
upholding  and  penetrating  the  life  of  nature  and  of  spirit,  cannot  possibly 
have  so  realised  His  image  in  man,  that  for  the  latter  a  resolving  of  his 
consciousness  into  the  opposition  of  believing  and  knowing  were  necessary'' 
(Fabn). 

4.  Where,  in  opposition  to  the  two  extremes,  we  maintain  the  position 
that  the  knowledge  of  God  is  to  a  certain  height  possible  for  man,  we 
must  at  the  same  time  make  due  distinction  between  a  perfect  knowledge 
and  a  true  one  (cognitio  adcequata  et  vera).     The  former  is  a  knowledge 
which  wholly  comprehends  its  object ;  the  latter  a  pure,  although  also  a 
highly  imperfect  knowledge.     The  possibility  of  the  former  we  deny  :  our 
theology  is  a  "  theologia  viatorum,  11011  beatonim"     Holding  the  possibility 
of  the  latter,  we  lay  down  the  proposition  that  God  may  be  truly  known, 
not  wholly,  or  as  He  is  in  Himself,  but  as  and  in  so  far  as  He  reveals 
Himself.     We  see  "as  in  a  glass,"  but  yet  we  see  something — not  the  face 
of  God,  but  yet  the  fringes  of  His  kingly  robe.8 

5.  For  this  possibility  there  exists  a  reason,  partly  of  a  philosophic,  partly 
of  an  historic  nature.     The  philosophic  ground  consists,  on  the  one  hand, 
in  the  nature  of  man  as  a  reasonable  and  moral  creature,  and  one  related 
to  God  ;  and  on  the  other,  in  that  of  God,  conceived  of  as  the  absolutely 
perfect  Being,  who  as  such  must  both  be  desirous  and  able  to   reveal 
Himself;  and,  yet  further,  in  the  nature  of  the  relation  of  the  one  to  the 
other,  which    becomes  a  phantom,  both  objectively  and  subjectively,  so 
soon  as  a  genuine  knowledge  of  God  is  admitted  to  be  impossible.     The 
latter   in   the  fact  that  God   has   revealed  Himself  in   an   extraordinary 
manner,  and  since  then   has,  better  than  ever  before,  become  known  to 
thousands.9     He  who  will  not  admit  that  this  revelation  has  taken  place, 
must  prove  his  denial,  and — take  the  consequences  for  his  own  account. 

'"  Thus,  it  is  true  God  is  knowable,  but  only  so  far  as  He  gives  Himself 
to  be  known,  and  so  far  as  the  power  of  active  or  passive  receptivity  in  man 
extends  "  (Nitzsch).  The  highest  guarantee  for  the  infallible  certainty  of 
this  knowledge  consists  precisely  in  this — that  it  comes  from  Himself.  If 
He  willed  to  keep  Himself  concealed,  who  could  discover  Him  ?  But  if  He 
willed  to  reveal  Himself,  who  shall  dispute  to  man  the  possession  of  an 
eye  .wherewith  to  contemplate  the  beaming  of  His  light  ?  "  Qitalitcr 

7  De  Atheismo,  p.  119.  8  Exod.  xxxiii.  18 — 23. 

9  John  xvii.  25  ;  i  John  ii.  13 ;  iv.  1 6. 


238  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

cognovi  Te  ?  Cognovi  te  in  te.  Cognovi  te,  non  sicuti  Tibi  es,  sed  sicuti  mihi 
es,  et  non  sine  te,  sed  in  te ;  quia  tu  es  lux,  qui  illuminasti  me.  Sicut  cnim 
Tibi  es,  Tibi  soli  cognitus  es;  sicut  mihi  es,  secundum  gratiam  tuam  et  mihi 
cognitus  es.  Cognovi,  QUIA  Deus  meus  es  Tu  "  (Augustine).  So  it  is  ;  God's 
original  communication  of  life  to  man  is  the  ground  of  the  possibility  of 
God  and  His  truth  being  known  to  man. 

6.  Only  it  must  never  be  forgotten  that  the  knowledge  of  God,  in  this 
sense,  remains  exclusively  the  fruit  of  personal  faith  in  God,  and  conse- 
quently becomes  more  extended  and  clear,  in  proportion  as  faith  itself 
becomes  more  steadfast  and  devout.  The  eye  of  faith  must,  in  every 
domain,  observe,  compare,  combine,  the  facts  of  revelation ;  and  thus 
must  it  rise,  in  the  light  of  spiritual  experience,  in  due  order,  from  the  con- 
templation of  the  known  to  the  well-founded  conception  of  the  unknown. 
Faith  is  here,  in  the  fullest  sense,  the  root  and  principle  of  knowledge  : 
according  to  the  Apostle's  word,  "  We  have  believed  and  known  that 
Thou  art  the  Holy  One  of  God."  10  The  opposition  here  also,  by  which 
the  inner  life  of  the  man  is  dominated,  is  not  between  believing  and 
knowing,  but  between  believing  and  non-believing.  But  thus  the  question 
as  to  the  nature  and  grounds  of  our  belief  in  God  becomes  precisely  for 
our  science  of  the  highest  importance. 

Compare  the  literature  brought  forward,  §  iii.  ;  and  besides  this  H.  ULRICI,  /.  /.,  p.  6  ; 
FABRI,  /.  /.,  pp.  164 — 190;  FABRI,  Das  allgemeine  Wahrheitsgefiihl,  etc.;  LANGE, 
Positive  Dogm.t  §  xxxii.  ;  and  the  art.  Gott,  by  NITZSCH,  in  Herzog,  ft.  E.  v. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

The  controversy  between  the  Thomists  and  the  Scotists. — How  is  it  that  the  question  as 
to  the  knowableness  of  God  has,  even  with  the  light  of  Holy  Scripture,  been  so  differently 
answered  in  every  age? — Value  of  the  knowledge  of  God  as  presented  by  Mysticism  and 
Speculative  Philosophy.  — The  drawing  of  a  sharp  line  between  knowing  and  believing,  in 
the  sphere  of  Theology,  favourable — contrary  to  the  intention  of  its  authors — to  the  cause 
of  unbelief. — The  standpoint  occupied  by  us  wholly  in  harmony  with  the  doctrine  ol  Holy 
Scripture,  the  principal  Christian  Fathers,  and  the  confessional  writings  of  the  Reformed 
Church. 


SECTION  XLIV.— BELIEF  IN  GOD. 

Belief  in  God  is  by  no  means  the  necessary  product  of  abstract 
reasoning,  but  has  its  firm  basis  in  the  whole  nature  and  being 
of  man,  who  is  originally  and  evidently  constituted  for  this  belief. 
Christian  Dogmatics,  therefore,  is  as  little  fitted  as  obliged  to  give 
a  proof,  properly  so  called,  of  the  existence  of  the  Godhead  ;  it  is 

"  John  vi.  69  (according  to  all  the  best  MSS.)  ;  I  John  v.  13. 


BELIEF  IN  GOD.  239 

simply  called  to  affirm  its  confession  of  that  belief,  on  grounds 
drawn  by  preference  from  its  own  domain.  Without  thus  calling 
in  question  the  relative  value  of  other  so-called  proofs  for  the 
existence  of  God,  it  appeals,  to  this  end,  especially  to  the  exist- 
ence and  effects  of  a  special  Revelation,  which,  once  sufficiently 
established,  of  itself  necessarily  leads  to  the  belief  in  a  higher 
Causality. 

1.  In  speaking  of  belief  in  God,  we  mean  not  simply  an  intellectual 
conviction  that  a  higher  Being  really  exists,  but  a  confidence  of  the  heart, 
which  is  not  less  firmly  assured  of  the   being  of  God  than  of  its  own 
existence.     Such  belief  recognises  God  as  existing,  'not  merely  in  thought, 
but  in  reality ;   and  adores  Him  as  the  highest  Being,  but  undoubtedly, 
still  more  as  the  most  really  existing  One  (Ens  rcalissimuni).     It  holds  itself 
convinced,  not  of  the  accuracy  of  its  own  conception  of  God  ;  but  ever  the 
more  of  this,  that  the  Being,  to  whom  the  conception  has  reference,  is  no 
creature  of  the   imagination.     The  notion  which  is  associated  with  the 
name  of  God  varies  infinitely,  and  is  in  its  highest  development  imperfect 
and  limited.     Yet  it  has  ever  reference  to  a  higher,  invisible,  and  mighty 
Being,  who  must  be  served  and  glorified;  and  the  belief  that  God  is, 
remains  the  basis  of  every  religion.1     The  question  is  simply  whether  this 
belief  can  be  satisfactorily  maintained  against  doubt  and  opposition. 

2.  Belief  in  God  is  by  no  means  the  necessary  product  of  demonstration. 
As  old  as  humanity  itself  (§  xxii.),  it  was  not  produced  at  first  by  reasoning, 
but  rather  in  its  most  primitive  form  preceded  all  reasoning.     No  one  has 
ever  begun  to  feel  convinced   of  this  truth,  merely  because  it  had  been 
demonstrated  to  him  in    a  strictly  logical  manner.     Men  would  hardly, 
indeed,  have  given  themselves  the   trouble   to   seek  for  proofs   for  this 
conviction,  had  it  not  with  irresistible  power  forced  itself,  as  it  were,  on 
their  innermost  consciousness.    Everywhere  do  we  discover  this  belief,  even 
where    no    proof  has    ever    yet   been   heard  of;  and    it  will    last    even 
where  the  weak  sides  of  all  known  proofs  are   by  no  means   ignored. 
Belief  in  God  is  consequently  no  result,  but,  on  the  contrary,  a  starting- 
point  for  human  thinking  on  invisible  things — a  postulate  of  our  whole 
rational  and   moral   nature,    but  no    result   of  a   universally   recognised 
syllogism. 

3.  The  existence  of  God  cannot  even  be  proved  in  such  a  way  that 
henceforth  all  doubt  remains  absolutely  impossible.     The  startling  cha- 
racter of  this  assertion  disappears  as  soon  as  we  form  for  ourselves  a  clear 
conception  of  what  must  be  understood  by  the  word  prove.     A  proposition 
is  proved  so  soon  as  it  is  incontestably  apparent  that  it  follows  as  an 
absolutely  necessary  consequence  from  another  indisputable  proposition. 
All  proving  therefore  consists  in  an  appeal  to  a  higher  truth,  which  forms 
the  solid  basis  for  that  which  must  be  established  by  this  very  appeal. 


1  Heb.  xi.  6. 


240  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

To  prove  the  existence  of  God  would  thus,  properly  speaking,  be  to  bring 
forward  the  ground  for  God's  existence.  But  precisely  because  He  is  the 
most  perfect,  absolute  Being,  God  has  the  ground  of  His  existence  not 
outside  of  or  above  Him,  but  in  Himself  alone ;  He  is,  because  He  is, 
and  cannot  possibly  not  be.  The  Infinite  may  indeed  be  dimly  appre- 
hended, may  be  revealed,  adored,  but  cannot  possibly  be  proved  by 
demonstration.  That  only  can  be  proved  which  falls  within  the  sphere  of 
the  finite  comprehension.  From  the  infinitude  and  incomprehensibleness 
of  God  follows  at  the  same  time  His  absolute  undemonstrableness.  God 
is  not  demonstrated  by  us,  but  demonstrates  Himself  to  us  as  the  cause  of 
all  that  exists.  "  A  God  who  can  be  proved  is  no  God ;  for  the  ground  of 
proof  is  necessarily  above  the  thing  proved  by  it"  (Jacobi).  Assuredly 
the  utterance  of  faith,  God  exists,  must  be  capable  of  being  justified  by 
solid  arguments,  before  we  are  at  liberty  to  base  anything  upon  the  truth 
of  this  proposition.  But  the  existence  itself  of  the  Infinite  is  and  remains, 
nevertheless,  a  fact,  which  must  be  believed  on  good  grounds ;  and 
which  to  a  certain  extent  can -be  understood  by  faith,  but  cannot  possibly 
as  a  scientific  proposition  be  irrefutably  proved  to  every  one,  without 
respect  to  the  mind  and  disposition  in  which  that  question  of  all  questions 
is  discussed.  He  who  here  looks  for  a  stringent  proof,  such  as  is  to  be 
found  in  the  domain  of  exact  science,  and  makes  his  assent  dependent  on 
the  issue  of  this  demonstration,  entirely  loses  sight  of  the  moral  character 
of  religious  truth,  and  would — even  supposing  the  experiment  to  be  suc- 
cessful—precisely by  this  means  degrade  God  to  the  category  of  finite 
things ;  and  make  his  faith  to  rest  upon  something  by  which  the  nature 
and  character  of  faith  would  be  annihilated. 

4.  If  consequently  a  proof  for  the  existence  of  God,  in  the  sense  dis- 
puted, were  possible,  such  a  proof  were  to  be  looked  for,  not  from  Christian 
Dogmatics,  but  rather  from  the  so-called  Natural  Theology.     While  this 
latter  conducts  its  investigation  in  a  general  manner,  and  by  the  scientific 
method,  as  to  the  nature  and  ground  of  belief  in  God,  the  former  has  to  do 
with  a  revealed  doctrine  of  Salvation,  and  to  draw  its  knowledge  from 
sources  in  which  the  existence  of  God  is  presupposed  and  testified,  but  is 
so  little  demonstrated  that  the  non-recognition  of  this  fundamental  truth  is 
simply  dismissed  as  folly.2     The  philosophic  proofs  for  God's  existence — 
this  has  been  acknowledged,  among  others,  by  Schleiermacher  and  Twesten 
— do  not  consequently  belong,  properly  speaking,  to  the  sphere  of  Christian 
Dogmatics.     The  only  thing  to  which  this  has  to  appeal  is  the  existence 
and  operation  of  the  revelation  of  Saving  Truth,  which  proves  God  in  the 
same  way  in  which  the  brightness  of  the  sun  proves  the  sun's  existence, 
not  by  the  method   of  philosophy,  but   in  an   historical   and  empirical 
manner. 

5.  Yet  Christian  Dogmatics  ought  not  from  its  standpoint  to  overlook 
the  importance  of  other  so-called  proofs  for  the  existence  of  God ;   much 
less  to  make  common  cause  with  those  who  speak  with  a  certain  contempt 
thereof,  as  a  fruit  of  defective  reasoning  and  foolish  imagination.     On  the 
contrary,  it  must  and  will  deplore  the  levity  with  which  the  assertion — in 

z  Ps.  xiv.  i. 


BELIEF  IN  GOD.  241 

Itself  true — that  God's  existence  cannot  be  proved  (demonstrated),  is 
frequently  repeated,  understood,  and  applied  in  a  way  which  as  much  as 
possible  plays  into  the  hands  of  unbelief  and  scepticism.  "Modern  Theo- 
logy, which  so  readily  gives  up  the  proofs  for  the  existence  of  God,  aban- 
dons thereby  not  only  its  own  position  as  a  science;  but  also,  in  principle, 
annihilates  faith,  and  the  religion  of  which  it  is  the  Theology"  (Ulrici).  It 
is  true,  there  is  not  a  single  proof  against  which  objections  more  or  less 
serious  might  not  be,  and  have  not  been,  adduced.  All  bear  the  unequi- 
vocal traces  of  the  limitation  of  human  thought,  and  each  in  its  turn 
suggests  to  our  mind  the  words  of  the  poet : — 

Wer  Gott  nicht  fuhlt  in  sich  und  alien  Lebenskreisen, 
Dem  werdet  ihr  Ihn  nicht  beweisen  mil  Bevveisen.3 

RUECKERT. 

But  yet  they  remain  highly  commendable,  as  more  or  less  successful  endea- 
vours, not  only  to  bring  into  satisfactory  clearness  the  utterances  of  the 
innermost  consciousness,  but  also  to  justify  them  to  oneself  and  others  as 
highly  reasonable.  In  curious  contrast  with  the  superficial  judgment, 
which  "breaks  the  staff  of  condemnation "  over  the  most  gigantic  efforts  of 
the  human  mind,  is  the  certainty  with  which  we  hear  one  of  the  greatest 
thinkers  of  our  age  express  himself:  "  I  hope  to  be  able  to  make  manifest 
how  the  existence  of  God  follows  as  the  result  of  the  modern  investigation 
of  nature,  with  the  same  certainty,  perhaps  even  with  greater,  than, 
e.g.,  the  existence  of  a  universal  power  of  attraction  operating  at  a 
distance,  of  a  material  of  light  or  heat  (ether),  of  an  electro-magnetic 
fluid,  etc.  For  it  will  be  seen  that  these  assumptions  of  natural 
science  equally  belong  only  to  the  sphere  of  scientific  faith"  (Ulrici).  A 
scientifically  stringent  demonstration  such  as  is  possible  in  a  lower  domain, 
and  the  kind  of  certainty  which  arises  therefrom,  is  here,  from  the  nature  of 
the  case,  impossible.  Yet,  nevertheless,  the  proofs  we  speak  of — properly 
conducted  and  suitably  combined — are  powerful  enough  to  offer  a  scientific 
defence  for  faith  in  God,  to  overcome  honest  doubts,  and  to  brand  as 
inexcusable  sin,  as  well  as  deplorable  folly,  the  obdurate  unbelief  which — 
in  the  presence  of  so  much  light — retreats  into  its  own  darkness.  And  a 
proud  ignoring  of  many  a  ray  of  light,  which  is  shed  in  this  way 
upon  the  sacred  mystery  of  the  cause  of  all  things,  conduces  just  as  little 
to  a  sound  Philosophy,  as  to  a  profound,  believing  Theology.  That 
which  effects  nothing  for  him  who  is  resolved  to  doubt,  and  accepts  no 
other  evidence  than  that  of  perception  by  the  senses,  is  not  on  that 
account  without  value  for  one  who,  with  receptive  mind  and  unprejudiced 
spirit,  surrenders  himself  to  the  powerful  impression  which  the  beauty  of 
the  Universe  makes  upon  all  who  attentively  contemplate  it. 

6.  Even  in  this  general  estimate,  however,  of  the  value  of  the  proofs  or 
grounds — insensibly  in  this  case  the  one  idea  flows  into  the  other — of  the 
central  truth  of  all  religion,  Dogmatics  cannot  possibly  for  its  purpose  attach 
the  same  value  to  all  of  them.  While  it  can  leave  to  its  proper  place 

*  For  him  who  feels  not  God  in  himself,  and  in  all  the  spheres  of  life,  you  will  not 
succeed  in  demonstrating  God  by  proofs. 

R 


242  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

the  argument  &  tutiori — "  that  scullery-maid  among  proofs  "  (Lange) — the 
ontological  proof  in  its  different  forms,  and  even  to  a  certain  extent  the 
purely  cosmological  argument,  or,  if  you  will,  can  resign  them  entirely  to 
the  criticism  of  a  necessary  sister  science ;  the  proofs  which  are  for  Dog- 
matics, above  all  others,  important,  are  those  drawn  from  Nature,  from 
History,  and  from  Humanity  itself,  because  it  recognises  in  these  the 
mirror  of  a  General  Revelation,  to  which  the  Special  attaches  itself  (comp. 
§  xxix.).  Especially  does  it  value  the  physico-theological  argument,  in  its 
simplest  form  employed  by  Jesus  Himself,  regarded  with  unfeigned  esteem 
by  philosophers  like  Kant ;  and  by  so  many  important  contributions,  even 
in  the  most  recent  times,  brought  to  an  evidence  as  strong  as  faith  can 
wish.  That  which  all  these  voices  proclaim  is  for  Dogmatics  raised  above 
all  reasonable  doubts,  by  the  fact — contradicted  indeed,  but  not  deprived 
of  its  force — of  the  existence  and  working  of  the  Saving  Revelation. 

7.  But  then  it  must  never  be  forgotten  that  all  proofs  together  can  and 
ought  only  to  serve  to  explain  and  confirm  that  which,  before  all  proof, 
lived  and  expressed  itself  in  every  human  heart.  Man  has  by  nature 
(§  xxii.  4)  an  original  and  deep-rooted  sense  of  God's  presence,  which  pre- 
cedes all  observation  and  reasoning,  but  by  means  of  these  is  brought  to 
its  full  distinctness.  We  do  not  hesitate  to  call  this  feeling  a  Consciousness 
of  God  (Godsbewustzijri) ;  since  we  can  explain  it  only  by  the  fact  that  the 
Infinite  One  Himself,  who  is  not  merely  above  us,  but  in  us,4  thus  imme- 
diately manifests  His  presence  in  the  man  who  has  been  created  after 
His  image,  and  thereby  placed  in  the  closest  relationship  to  Himself.  Not 
of  the  finite  world  without  him,  but  rather  of  the  Infinite  and  All-present 
One,  has  man  a  primitive  knowledge  in  himself ;  and  it  is  a  thought  of  the 
poet,  equally  true  as  it  is  beautiful,  that  the  first  name  stammered  forth  by 
the  first  man  on  his  first  awakening,  was  no  other  than  the  name  of  "Father." 
It  matters  not  whether  the  word  instinct  be  employed  in  this  connection 
or  not ;  what  is  certain  is,  that  no  necessity  makes  itself  felt  more  impera- 
tively in  man,  than  that  which  compels  him  to  believe  in  God,  the  living 
God.  Yea,  truly,  "  I  am  not,  claim  not  to  be,  if  He  is  not.  He  that 
planted  the  ear,  shall  He  not  hear  ?  He  that  formed  the  eye,  shall  He  not 
see  ? "  (Jacobi).  Our  whole  personality  is  an  enigma,  which  finds  its 
solution  only  in  belief  in  a  Being  who  is  Himself  absolute  Personality. 
Our  intellect  might  perhaps  be  able  to  rest  in  the  recognition  of  a  perfectly 
independent  something,  a  blind  power  of  nature,  an  obscure  basis  of  unity 
for  all  that  exists.  But  our  heart  cries  out  for  a  Person,  an  absolutely  perfect 
/,  to  whom  it  can  unreservedly  resign  itself;  and  it  is  contrary  to  all 
analogy  that  an  aspiration  so  old,  so  universal,  and  so  powerful,  should  be 
able  to  exist  without  an  object  entirely  adequate  to  it.  "  The  fundamental 
presupposition  of  our  personal  existence,  and  personal  self-consciousness, 
is  the  existence  of  the  Divine  Personality"  (Chalybaeus).  Atheism,  which 
reduces  to  silence  this  inner  voice,  not  only  makes  of  the  world  a  huge 
lunatic  asylum,  but  makes  despair  itself  to  rank  as  wisdom.  The  proof,  on 
the  other  hand,  e.g.,  from  the  realm  of  nature,  which  makes  manifest  that  the 


4  Acts  xvii.  27,  28  ;  Ephes.  iv.  6. 


THE   IDEA  OF   GOD.  243 

voice  of  creation  is  in  harmony  with  this  innermost  consciousness,  and  con- 
firms its  utterance,  has  clone  all  that  we  can  reasonably  expect  from  it  and 
gives,  where  it  is  successful,  the  right  to  say  to  the  adversary,  that  he  is 
without  excuse.6  But  this  calls  forth  in  turn  the  question  as  to  the  idea 
of  God,  and  leads  us  to  the  examination  thereof. 

Comp.  H.  ULRICI,  /.  c.,  pp.  1—15  ;  the  treatise  of  W.  F.  GESS,  Natur  oder  Gott, 
in  the  Ten  Lectures,  Basle,  1861  ;  DUSTERDIECK,  Apologet.  Btitr.  (1867),  ii.,  p.  19; 
CHRISTLIEB,  /.  c.,  p.  78,  seq.;  and  the  writings  mentioned  by  DCEDES,  /.  c.,  p.  249. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Origin  and  significance  of  the  name  God  in  ancient  and  modern  languages. — One-sided 
over-estimate  and  ungrateful  ignoring  of  the  proofs  of  God's  existence. — Whence  is  it  that 
the  same  proofs  are  for  some  insufficient,  and  for  others  wholly  superfluous  ? — Necessity 
for,  and  limits  of,  the  examination  as  to  God's  existence,  within  the  sphere  of  Christian 
Dogmatics. — The  ultimate  ground  of  the  Christian's  belief  in  God. 


SECTION   XLV. — THE  IDEA  OF  GOD. 

Belief  in  God  seeks  as  far  as  possible  to  have  a  pure  idea  of  God. 
The  science  of  faith  deduces  it  from  the  fact  of  Revelation  itself, 
and  the  historical  facts  connected  therewith.  From  a  Christian 
standpoint  God  is  recognised  and  confessed  as  the  Being  of  Beings, 
the  infinite  Spirit,  who,  personally  distinct  from  the  creation,  and 
exalted  infinitely  above  it,  nevertheless  continually  and  directly 
stands  to  it  in  the  closest  relation.  Notwithstanding  all  that  is 
obscure,  which  inevitably  cleaves  to  this  supranaturalistic  Theistic 
idea  of  God,  its  truth  and  value  is  raised  above  all  reasonable  ques- 
tioning. For  this  reason  must  as  well  the  Deistic  as  the  Pantheistic 
idea  of  God,  in  its  various  forms,  be  utterly  rejected,  not  merely 
in  the  name  of  Religion,  but  also  of  the  Christian  science  of  faith- 

1.  It  may  be  considered  superfluous  to  treat  at  large  on  the  importance 
of  an  accurate  idea  of  God.     Sincere  devoutness  may  be  united  even  with 
an  inaccurate  and  impure  notion  of  God  ;  but  still  religion  will  gain  in  lii;ht, 
warmth,  and  fruitfulness,  in  proportion  as  it  rests  upon  a  purer  conception 
of  the  Supreme  Being.     For  Christian  theological  thought  such  a  concep- 
tion is  not  merely  desirable,  but  indispensable,  and  it  is  simply  the  question 
in  what  way  it  is  to  be  attained  to. 

2.  Reason   alone — the  history   of   philosophy  renders   this    sufficiently 
plain — cannot  possibly  lead  us  up  to  a  pure  idea  of  God.     It  may  conduct 

*  Rom.  i.  20. 

R  2 


244  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

as  to  the  idea  of  a  Supreme  Cause  ;  but  to  the  question  how  we  are  to 
conceive  of  this  Cause,  it  cannot  give  a  satisfactory  solution.  The  best  idea 
we  can  fJrm  of  God  must  be  derived  from  the  highest  thing  we  know, 
human  nature  ;  but  in  this  way  AVC  obtain  no  other  God  than  a  supreme 
man.  We  have  no  data  by  which  the  idea  of  God  can  be  fixed  a  priori, 
but  must  form  it  d  posteriori  by  means  of  the  light  shed  by  Himself.  It  is 
even  not  sufficient  to  be  guided  by  some  separate  utterances  of  Holy 
Scripture,  which  are  frequently  figurative  ones,  or  which  must  receive  their 
complement  from  others.  Upon  the  great  fact  of  the  original  Revelation  of 
God  we  have  above  all  to  fix  the  mind — a  revelation  which,  as  we  have 
already  seen  (§  xxvii.),  must  be  accepted  by  us — and  then  upon  the  Facts, 
i.e.,  the  separate  acts,  of  self-revelation  on  the  part  of  God,  of  which  sacred 
history  speaks.  Only  where  this,  in  its  whole  and  in  its  parts,  has  been 
duly  proved  out  and  consulted,  is  firm  ground  attained  for  answering  the 
question  how  we  are  to  conceive  of  God.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  even 
with  this,  every  answer  will  bear  the  unmistakable  traces  of  human  limita- 
tion. "  Sicut  summus  ille  spiritus,  qui  Deus  est,  a  nullo  intellectu  valet 
proprie  excogitari,  nulla  definitione  potest  proprie  definiri  aut  determinari  " 
(Augustine). 

3.  In  the  light  of  Divine  Revelation  the  Christian  Church  in  general,  and 
the  Reformed  Church  in  particular,1  has  in  all  ages  given  the  same  answer 
to  the  question  as  to  the  Nature  of  God,  in  placing  itself  upon  the  basis  of 
Supranaturalistic  Theism.  In  speaking  of  God  as  a  Being,  we  deny  at  once 
that  He  is  a  mere  abstraction,  the  compendium  of  all  the  powers  and  laws 
of  nature,  which  would  thus  necessarily  vanish  if  these  should  disappear. 
We  speak  of  Him,  not  simply  as  the  totality  of  all  being,  but  as  the  self- 
existent  One,  who  unconditionally  is,2  and  would  be,  though  all  beyond 
Himself  should  be  altogether  non-existent.  He  is  tor  us.  consequently,  not 
only  All,  but  Lord  over  all ;  not  a  Something,  but  a  Person ;  no  //,  but  a 
Thou.  We  call  Him  the  Being  of  all  Beings,  not  only  because  He  is 
above  all  others,  but  because  He  may  be  called  the  absolute  ground  of 
existence  for  them  all ;  the  highest  reality,  in  a  word,  so  that  our  thinking  of 
Him,  far  indeed  from  surpassing  the  reality,  on  the  contrary  does  not  by 
a  long  way  attain  to  it.  The  peculiar  characteristic  of  the  Being  of  God  we 
describe  by  using  here,  with  Jesus,8  the  name  of  Spirit:  In  doing  so,  we 
deny  that  in  or  about  Him  there  is  anything  of  corporeity,  of  however  re- 
fined a  nature,  as  has  now  and  then  been  asserted  by  Gnosticism  and 
Theosophy.4  But  at  the  same  time  we  maintain  that  He  possesses  all  that 
is  inseparable  from  the  life  of  the  Spirit  as  such.  For  Spirit  is  not  merely 
power,  but  above  all  self-consciousness ;  as  Spirit,  God  must  consequently 
be  of  necessity  a  thinking,  self-determining  being.  We  men  have  a  spirit, 
which  thinks  and  wills,  in  a  limited,  finite  way  ;  God  is  Spirit,  yea,  the  Father 
of  spirits ; 6  not  simply  the  spiritual  principle  in  nature,  but  the  cause  of  all 

1  See  the  Netherlands  Confession,  Art.  i.  ;  Heidelberg  Catechism,  questions  26 — 28. 

2  [Rev.  i.  40.] 

*  John  iv.  24. 

4  Compare  TERTULLIAN,  De  Carne  Chr.,  c.  II  ;  Adv.  Prax.,  c.  7. 

*  Heb.  xii.  9. 


THE   IDEA  OF  GOD.  245 

nature,  and  of  its  spiritual  principle  at  the  same  time.  And  as  such  we 
speak  of  Him  as  the  infinite  Spirit ;  not  in  the  speculative  sense,  in  which 
this  word  is  often  used,  of  the  absolutely  unlimited,  so  that  beyond  Him- 
self nothing  can  be  conceived  of  as  existing — this  would  lead  rather  to 
Acosmism  and  Pantheism — but  in  the  moral  sense,  of  boundlessly  perfect, 
and  precisely  on  this  account  all-embracing,  Spirit ;  so  that  nothing  is  to  be 
found  in  God  which  does  not  bear  the  stamp  of  the  highest  perfection  ;  and 
again,  all  perfection  is  in  Him  personally  united.  Personally,  we  repeat,  in 
order  thereby  to  express  the  fact,  that  in  the  absolute  Being  the  highest  self- 
consciousness  is  united  with  perfect  freedom. 

4.  As  such  God  is  infinitely  exalted  above  the  world,  and  definitely  dis- 
tinguished therefrom.     The  powers  of  nature  can  and  may  then  alone  be 
called  the  powers  of  God,  when  we  express  thereby   that  His  will — to  be 
carefully  distinguished  from  the  law  ot  nature  appointed  by  Him — reveals 
itself  by  those  powers,  and  thus  actually  operates  in  the  world.     Never 
must  we  regard  a  law  or  force  of  nature  as  a  part  of  the  Godhead  Himself ; 
and  even  when  we  speak  of  God's  being  ia  the  world,  or  of  the  world's 
being  in  God,  nothing  more  is  indicated  than  a  reciprocal  relationship  of 
that  which  originally  was  and  still  remains  distinct.      The  original  distinction 
between  God  and  the  world  is  not  effaced,  but  simply  more  nearly  dtfined, 
by  such  a  mode  of  speech.     We   have  just  as  little  to  think  of  the  world 
without  God,  as  of  God  without   the  world,6  but  so  to  conceive  of  God's 
infinite  exaltedness  above  the  world,  as  to  lose  in  connection  with  it  all 
conception  of  locality.      Just  as  spirit  is  dynamically  above  matter,  so  the 
Father  of  spirits  stands,   seif-conscious  and  free,  alike  above  all  spirit  and 
all  matter.     Just  as  little  as  our  spirit  is  imprisoned  wiihin  the  limits  of  our 
body,  is  God  enclosed  within  the  cosmos  called  into  being  by  Him.     And 
again,  as  the  relation   between  spirit  and  body  is  most  intimate  and  reci- 
procal, not  other  is  that  between  God  and  the  world.     "  Nature  expresses 
by  its  types  and  its  laws  in   the  world  of  bodies  and  of  spirits  the  eternal 
and  Divine  thought;  it  is  the  workman  of  God  "  (Caro).     It  is  and  remains 
a  direct  relation,  even  where  God  reveals  Himself  in  the  world,  and  works 
through  the  instrumentality  of  the  means  appointed  by  Him.     The  notion  of 
God  and  of  the  world  can  therefore  never  become  interchangeable,  and  the 
mutual  relationship  of  both  is  best  defined  in  the  following  manner :  God 
is  (as  transcendent)  personally  above  the  world,  but  at  the  same  time  (as 
immanent)  works  unceasingly  and  independently  in  the  world. 

5.  It  is  impossible  to  make  even  the  most  modest  attempt  at  describing 
the  Divine  nature,  without  therein  meeting  with  problems  and  questions 
too  high  for  our  human  thinking.     The  matter    seems  comparatively  easy 
if  one  confesses  exclusively  either  the  Transcendency  of  God  above  the 
world,  or  the  Immanency  of  God  in  the  world  ;    but  scarcely  does  one 
attempt  to  unite  both  ideas,  when  it  becomes   apparent  that  a  perfectly 
satisfactory  formula  is  still  sought  in  vain.     Unceasingly  are  we  exposed 
to  the  danger,  either  of  confounding  God  with  the  world,  or  of  separating 
Him  from  the  world.     God  transcendent,  but  then  not  truly  immanent ; 
or  really  immanent,  but  then  no  longer  transcendent  ;  it  seems  almost 

8  Acts  xvii.  28. 


246  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

impossible  to  the  thinking  mind  to  escape  that  inexorable  alternative.  Faith, 
however,  understands  that  not  only  the  notion  of  God,  but  what  is  more,  God 
Himself,  is  lost  to  us,  so  soon  as  one  of  the  two  parts  of  this  confession  is 
sacrificed  to  the  other  ;.it  will  not  suffer  the  denial  of  its  right  to  maintain 
the  truth  of  what  cannot  be  comprehended,  so  long  as  it  is  manifest  that 
preponderating  reasons  exist  for  doing  so.  Even  where — with  the  Christian 
father — it  calls  God  the  great  Anonymous,  it  cannot  think  of  Him  otherwise 
than  as  the  infinite  Personality ;  existing  not  merely  above  the  parts  of  the 
world,  but  above  the  totality  of  the  world,  which  is  to  be  carefully  distin- 
guished from  Himself.  In  other  words,  the  Christian  idea  of  God  is  that 
not  of  Monistic,  but  of  Supranaturalistic  Theism. 

6.  The  greater  accuracy  of  this  idea  of  God,  as  compared  with  any  other, 
is  not  doubtful. — Even  the  attentive  contemplation  of  nature  leads  us  up 
to  such  a  conception  of  God.  Everywhere  do  we  meet  with  phenomena 
which  are  the  manifestation  of  a  thought  that,  to  a  certain  extent,  can  be 
entered  into,  and  thought  out.  Creation  speaks  not  simply  of  an  infinite 
Power,  but  of  an  all-embracing  Spirit,  and  is  explicable  only  as  the  work  of 
a  wise  and  holy  Will. — Revelation,  with  which  Holy  Scripture  makes  us 
acquainted,  everywhere  favours  the  same  conception.  The  very  names  of 
the  Godhead  which  occur  therein  have,  in  this  respect,  great  significance. 
That  of  Elohim,  in  the  first  place,  indicates  a  royal  dignity,  which  without 
self-consciousness  and  freedom  would  be  inconceivable.  The  same  may  be 
said  of  Adonai,  El-Roeh  (God  of  Vision),7  El-Shaddai,  Lord  of  Hosts  ;9 
above  all,  of  the  name  Jehovah  or  Jahveh,  the  covenant-name,  by  which  the 
unchangeableness  of  God's  nature  is  expressed.10  Therefore  He  is  empha- 
tically called  a  God  who  is,11  the  King  of  the  ages,12  who  only  hath  immor- 
tality;18 in  all  things  the  opposite  of  the  idols,  who  hear  not,  neither  do 
they  see.14  A  great  value  must  be  attached,  in  this  connection,  above  all,  to 
the  words  of  the  Lord  Himself,  where  He  speaks  of  God  as  Spirit,15  but  at 
the  same  time  recognises  Him  as  the  Father,  the  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,16 
and  to  those  of  His  first  witnesses ;"  not  to  speak  more  particularly  of  so 
many  an  exalted  prophetic  utterance,  especially  in  Isaiah. — Philosophic 
thinking  has,  through  a  number  of  ages,  given  testimony  to  the  truth  of  this 
conception  of  God  above  every  other  ;  and  the  whole  history  of  ancient 
and  modern  philosophy  may  be  termed  an  endeavour  to  rise  from  a  lower 
conception  to  this  higher  one.  Let  any  one  think  of  Anaxagoras  and  Plato 
among  the  earlier  philosophers ;  of  Descartes,  Leibnitz,  Kant,  the  younger 
Fichte,  and  others,  among  the  later  ones.  One  thing  is  clear :  he  who 
abandons  Theism,  exchanges  a  higher  for  a  lower  conception  of  God,  and 
pne  from  which  the  human  spirit  had  not  without  difficulty  freed  itself. 
Only  as  regarded  from  this  standpoint  is  God  the  absolutely  perfect  One, 
the  LORD  in  the  full  force  of  the  word.  Personality  is  the  highest  form  of 
existence,  truly  spiritual,  and  at  the  same  time  concrete ;  no  mere  force, 
or  law,  or  life,  is  a  being,  and  only  a  God  who  is  truly  a  being,  can  be 


7  Gen.  xvi.  13 

8  Gen.  xvii.  I. 
*  James  v.  4. 
10  Isaiah  xli.  4. 

11  wrr  *:N,  Deut.  xxxii.  39. 

12  i  Tim.  i.  17. 
11  i  Tim.  vi.  1  6. 
14  Psalm  cxv.  3  —  8. 

15  John  iv.  24. 

16  Matt.  xi.  25. 
i;  John  i.  18  ;  Rev.  i. 

8. 

THE   IDEA  OF  GOD.  247 

prayerfully  approached. — Especial  emphasis  must  here  be  laid  upon  this 
last  particular:  true  religion  (§  xxi.)  is  possible  only  in  connection  with  a 
supranaturalistic  Theistic  conception  of  God.  *'  We  do  not  worship  a  law. 
however  simple  and  fruitful  it  may  be  ;  we  do  not  worship  a  force,  if  it  is 
blind,  however  powerful,  however  universal  it  may  be  ;  nor  an  ideal,  how- 
ever pure,  if  it  is  an  abstraction  :  we  worship  only  a  Being  who  is  living 
perfection,  perfection  under  the  highest  forms,  Thought,  Love "  (Caro). 
With  a  God  who  is  either  separated  irom  the  world,  or  identical  with  it,  no 
true,  i.e.  reciprocal,  communion  is  possible.  ]n  the  case  01  every  other 
notion  of  God,  God  remains  at  least  equally  incomprehensible,  while  at  the 
same  time  He  is  presented  to  us  as  less  exalted  and  adorable. 

7.  The  value  of  the  conception  of  God  thus  maintained  is  quickly  seen. 
It  becomes  manifest,  partly  as  a  fruit  of  reasoning,  partly  as  a  result  of  com- 
parison with  other  representations  of  God,  partly,  and  above  all,  as  the 
product  of  one's  own  living  experience.     The  supranaturalistic  Theistic 
conception  of  God  may  be  for  a  time  abandoned ;  but  ever  again  must  it 
be  returned  to,  unless  one  will  finally  give  up  all  true  religion,  i.e.,  God  and 
one's  self.     Whatever  problems  and  questions  it   leaves  unsolved,  it  still 
remains  always  far  preferable  to  that  of  Deism  and  Pantheism. 

8.  Djism  is  that  school  of  thought  which  continues  to    maintain  the 
Transcendency  of  God  above   the  world  ;  but  sacrifices  to  this  view  His 
Immanency  in  it.     In  opposition  to  Atheism,  it  recognises  God's  existence; 
in  opposition   to   Pantheism,   His  personality  ;  but  as  distinguished  from 
Theism,  it  entirely  overlooks  His  continuous  relation  to  the  world  created  by 
Him.     It  thinks  of  the  Cosmos  as  a  clock  or  watch  which  runs  on  according 
to  its  own  structure,  while  every  act  of  intervention  or  interposition  on  the 
part  of  God  in  the  course  of  things  is  regarded  as  opposed  to  His  own 
perfection  and  the  absolute    faultlessness  of  His  works.     This  notion  of 
God,  formerly  entertained  in  part  by  the  Monarchians,  later  by  the  Socinians 
and  the  older  Rationalists,  is  now  also  favoured  by  the  "  Modern  Tendency," 
which — while  recognising  the  personal  life  of  God — sees  in  all  that  happens 
only   the  natural    consequence    of  finite   causes,  and   admits  of  no  free 
operation  of  God's  will,  above  and  beyond  the  rigid  bond  of  causality. 
From  a  Christian-philosophic  standpoint  such  a  conception  of  God  cannot 
possibly  find  acceptance.     It  is  not  only  in  irreconcilable  contradiction  with 
the  word  of  Jesus  Himself,18  but  also  with  the  whole  spirit  of  the  Gospel ; 
it  is  absolutely  incapable  of  satisfying  the  deepest  aspirations  of  the  religious 
spirit ;  it  explains  absolutely  nothing  of  the  great  enigma,  while  it  necessa- 
rily makes  of  the  world  the  engine  of  a  Perpctuum  Mobile.     No  wonder 
that  many  look  down  with  especial  contempt  upon  this  "  religion  of  the 
clockmakers,"  and  rather  look  to  a  Pantheistic  conception  of  God  for  that 
which  they  have  without  result  sought  in  a  Deistic  conception, 

9.  Pantheism  is  that  mode  o.  thinking  which  emphatically  recognises 
God's  Immanence  in  the  world,  but  denies  His  transcendency  above  it, 
There  is  no  conception  of  God  which  reveals  itself  in  the  history  of  religion 
and  philosophy  in  so  many  forms.  The  word  is  not  yet  two  centuries  old 
(1705),  but  the  thing  itself  is  found  in  the  most  diverse  religious  systems, 


18  See,  for  example,  John  v.  1 7. 


248  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

both  of  those  before  and  of  those  after  Christ.  It  is  well  known  that  the 
Pantheistic  systems  have  been  variously  divided,  and  it  is  unnecessary  here 
to  give  the  different  divisions,  or  to  test  them  at  large  ;  there  is  no  single 
one,  perhaps,  which  does  not  call  forth  more  or  less  weighty  objec- 
tions. But  in  all  its  different  forms  Pantheism  has  this  peculiarity,  that  it 
does  not  recognise  the  Personality  of  God,  and  maintains  the  absolute  unity 
of  God  and  the  world  against  every  dualistic  division.  Its  conception  of 
the  world  cannot  therefore  be  any  other  than  the  Naturalistic  one.  Not 
only  the  history  of  Philosophy,  but  also  that  of  Mysticism,  both  within  and 
without  the  Christian  Church,  reveals  to  us  at  every  step  the  most  dissimilar 
examples  of  this  mode  of  thinking ;  and  it  is  not  easy  to  judge  with 
perfect  equity  of  a  conception  of  God,  which  serves  as  basis  to  so  many 
different  views.  The  complaint  of  Schleiermacher,  that  the  name  of  Pan- 
theist is  frequently  employed  without  reason  as  a  "  name  of  reproach  and 
nickname,"  has  just  grounds.  As  opposed  to  a  dry,  mechanical  Deism, 
Pantheism  has  a  claim,  relative  indeed,  but  not  the  less  indisputable.  For 
the  aesthetic  feeling  and  the  glowing  imagination,  the  thought,  God  is  the 
One  and  the  All  (r6  tv  /cat  rb  TTOJ>\  has  not  only  its  dazzling  side,  but  also 
its  seductive  power.  And  we  cannot  be  surprised  that  He  who  can  sacri- 
fice everything  else  to  the  demand  for  strict  unity  in  His  mode  of  thinking, 
should  repeat  the  words  of  Jacobi :  "There  is  no  philosophy,  but  the  philo- 
sophy of  Spinoza." 

Yet  this  must  not  render  us  blind  to  the  many  and  great  difficulties  which 
weigh  against  the  Pantheistic  conception  of  God,  and  render  it  wholly  inad- 
missible. It  must  be  rejected  in  the  name  of  religious  feeling,  understand- 
ing, and  conscience. — The  feeling  of  need  for  personal  communion  with 
God  remains  unsatisfied,  unless  He  truly  exists,  as  another  Ego,  as  distin- 
guished from  ourselves.  Prayer  becomes  a  folly,  so  soon  as  it  is  nothing 
more  than  a  "  plunging  into  the  cooling  depths  of  the  one  cause  of  all 
things  "  (Strauss).  Love  towards  a  blind  power  of  nature,  which  rises  to 
self-consciousness  only  in  man,  is  equally  impossible  as  obedience  towards  a 
being  which  can  give  effect  to  no  will  as  contradistinguished  from  our  own. 
Pantheism  becomes  auto-theism,  and  leads  to  self-adoration. — But  the 
understanding,  also,  is  unable  to  rest  satisfied  with  the  conception  of  a  God 
who  is  supposed  to  have  created  the  highest  form  of  existence  known  to  us, 
personality,  without  Himself  being  personal.  Out  of  the  mysterious  origi- 
nating material  of  all  things  (Natura  naturans)  can  be  explained  just 
as  little  the  harmonious  beauty,  as  the  order  and  fitness  of  all  in  the 
visible  creation  (Natura  naturata}.  The  genesis  of  all  things ;  the  deve- 
lopment of  the  higher  life  out  of  inorganic  matter  :  the  whole  course  of  the 
world's  history,  as  the  evident  product  of  a  thinking  and  willing  power : 
these  are  all  problems  in  regard  to  which  Pantheism,  with  its  unsuccessful 
attempts  at  solution,  would  compel  us,  in  place  of  believing  in  a  mystery, 
to  believe  in  an  absurdity. — The  conscience,  finally,  protests  against  a  doc- 
trine which  is  in  irreconcilable  conflict  with  its  own  distinct  utterance.  It 
leaves  just  as  little  room  for  the  ideas  of  sin  and  virtue,  as  for  those  of  re- 
sponsibility and  retribution.  Self-accusation  becomes  self-deception,  where 
even  the  sin  is  a  necessary  part  of  that  whole,  which  is  essentially  one  with 
God.  The  great  question,  "  Whence  moral  evil?  "  is  entirely  out  of  place  in 


THE  IDEA  OF  GOD.  249 

such  connection  ;  that  which  is  so  called  is  rather  something  natural,  neces- 
sary, and  is  so  far  relatively  good.  The  science  of  Ethics  becomes  from 
this  standpoint  simply  psychological  mechanics.  Even  the  so  highly  praised 
effort  to  attain  to  the  pure  human  ideal  (Humaniteif)  is  in  principle  paralysed, 
so  soon  as  the  boundary-line  between  the  merely  natural  life  and  the  higher 
moral  one  is  tacitly  effaced.  Either  all  conscience  is  an  illusion,  or  Pantheism 
is  false.  If  one  has  been  led  into  it  as  the  result  of  an  intellectual  process, 
he  will  best  be  delivered  therefrom  by  means  of  this  psychological-moral 
argument. 

In  vain  does  Pantheism  seek  countenance  or  support  in  Holy  Scripture. 
Even  the  opening  words  of  Genesis  confirm  the  opposite  view ;  and  not 
less  does  all  that  is  there  taught  concerning  a  constant  speaking  and  self- 
revealing  on  the  part  of  God,  under  whatever  form  this  is  conceived  of. 
Places  like  Eccles.  xii.  7  ;  Isaiah  xlv.  7  ;  Acts  xvii.  28  ;  i  Cor.  xv.  28  ; 
i  John  iv.  1 6,  testify  in  favour  of  this  view,  only  so  long  as  one  clings  unre- 
flectingly to  the  mere  ring  of  the  wprds.- — Still  less  is  there  ground  for 
accusing  of  a  crypto-Pantheistic  tendency,  as  has  sometimes  been  done, 
certain  Reformers  and  Teachers  of  the  Reformed  Church,  who  held  fast 
to  the  "  cor  ecclesise.'' — Least  of  all  must  the  advocates  of  the  Pantheistic 
view  assert  that  they  have  attained  to  a  higher  standpoint  in  the  domain 
of  Theological  thought,  than  is  assumed  by  the  representatives  of  Christian 
Theism.  We  are  justified,  on  the  contrary,  in  speaking  of  this  last, 
not  simply  as  the  highest  religious  standpoint,  but  also  as  the  highest 
philosophic  one.  The  logical  unity  of  thought  to  which  the  Spinozist 
rises,  is  simply  attained  at  the  cost  of  sacrificing  part  of  the  reality. 
Monism  may  perhaps  be  a  postulate,  but  never  a  result,  of  a  mode 
of  thought  which  duly  takes  into  account  all  the  facts  of  the  case.  It  is 
the  fruit  of  an  empty  abstraction  ;  while  Theism  alone  can  lay  claim  to  be 
the  accurate  expression  of  that  truth,  of  which  Deism  and  Pantheism,  each 
from  its  own  standpoint,  have  had  an  inkling,  and  which  both  have  alike 
overlooked.  Only  let  it  never  be  overlooked  by  the  Theist  that  a  very 
essential  element  of  the  Christian  confession  of  God  consists  in  the  recogni- 
tion of — His  incomprehensibility. 

Comp.  CALVIN,  Instil.,  i.,  5,  9  ;  E.  A.  BOROER,  De  Myslidsmo  (1816) ;  P.  HOF- 
STEDE  DE  GROOT,  /.  c.,  pp.  217 — 228;  C.  W.  VAN  DER  PoT,  Over  de  verhouding  van 
der  Evang.  tot  hct  mdaphys.  be^rip  dtr  oneindigheid  Gods  (W.  in  L.,  1849,  iii.)  ;  CARD, 
UMee  de  Diet*  (1864)  ;  J.  W.  HANNE,  Die  Idee  der  absolulen  Personlichkat  (1865); 
a  dissertation  of  THILO  in  the  Godg.  Btjdr.  1868,  9th  part;  ULRICI'S  article,  Theism, 
in  Herzog's  R.  E.,  with  the  literature  there  adduced  ;  J.  I.  DOEDES,  /.  c.,  pp.  68  and  280. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Why  must  the  religious  belief  necessarily  rise  to  a  definite  conception  of  God? — 
Is  it  not  possible  to  construct  the  conception  of  God  d  priori? — Has  the  Christian  Church 
at  all  times  had  the  same  conception  of  God? — Nearer  explanation  and  defence  of  the 
idea  of  the  personality  of  God..— Difference  between  the  Monistic  and  the  Supernaturalistic 
Theism. — Criticism  of  the  former. — Deism  and  Pantheism  in  relation  to  the  principal 
points  of  Christian  Dogmatics.— Does  Pantheism  in  reality  find  not  the  slightest  support 
in  the  Bible,  or  in  the  writings  of  the  Reformers  and  their  spiritual  kinsmen?— 
case  that,  with  the  admission  at  the  same  time  of  the  Immanence  and  Transcendency  of 
God,  all  difficulty  is  at  once  removed  ? 


2$0  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 


SECTION   XLVI. — THE  UNITY  OF  GOD. 

From  the  contents  of  the  Christian  conception  of  God  the  unity 
of  the  Divine  Nature  necessarily  results.  Lost  sight  of  by  Heathen- 
dom, maintained  by  Israel,  yet  more  presupposed  than  taught  in  the 
Gospel,  Monotheism  is  for  intelligent  belief  simply  a  natural  conse- 
quence of  Theism,  yet  is  none  the  less  of  most  indisputable  value  for 
Religion  and  Morality. 

1.  The  discussion  of  the  conception  of  God  leads  naturally  to  that  of 
the  unity  of  God,  with  which  it  is  most  closely  connected.     In  fixing  the 
idea  of  this  unity  the  older  Dogmatics  has  rightly  distinguished  between 
unity  of  number  and  of  kind  (unitas  numerica  et  specified},  and  demanded 
the  recognition  of  both  in  regard  to  the  Divine  Nature.     We  speak  of  it  as 
one  and  indivisible,  but  also  as  unique  and  incomparable.     This  transcen- 
dental  unity  of  nature   is   thus  no   property  of  God   along   with  other 
attributes,  such  as  holiness,  wisdom,  etc.,  but  the  absolute  condition  (con- 
ditio  sine  qua  nori)    of   His   whole   existence.     Genuine   Theism   cannot 
possibly  present  itself  otherwise  than  as  Monotheism. 

2.  The /nw/"  for  this  position  is  nowhere  given  in  Holy  Scripture,  but 
its  truth  is  everywhere  presupposed,  witnessed  to,  and  where  necessary, 
energetically  maintained.1     Against  the  absurdity  of  Polytheism  is  wielded 
the  lash  of  satire.2     Monotheism  also  in  reality  alone  commends  itself  as 
truly  religious  and  perfectly  rational.     Belief  in  the  unity  of  God  finds  its 
sup  port  partly  in  the  idea  of  absolute  perfection  itself,  which  can  only  be 
one  and  indivisible ;  partly  in  the  harmony  of  the  laws,  forces,  and  phe- 
nomena in  the  kingdom  of  nature,  and  notably  in  the  unity  of  the  moral 
law ;  partly,  in  the  last  place,  in  history,  which  clearly  shows  that  humanity, 
as  it  continues  to  develop  itself,  ever  ascends  from   Polytheism  to  Mono- 
theism, never  the  reverse.     No  wonder  that  the  latter  may  be  called  the 
common  basis  of  the  Law,  the  Gospel,  and  of  Islamism. 

3.  In   presence  of  so  much  evidence  the  long-continued  and  manifold 
ignoring  of  this  truth  might  well  surprise  us,  were  it  not  that  this  pheno- 
menon must  for  other  reasons  be  regarded  as  sufficiently  easily  explained. 
It  cannot  be  disputed,  that  that  which  now  Appears  to  us  so  simple  and 
natural,  as  scarcely  to  call  for  discussion,  was  c. early  recognised  and  con- 
fessed only  by  a  few  sages  of  heathen   antiquity;  and  even  in  these  cases 
there  is  still  a  question    whether   the  tradition  of  earlier   revelation  has 
not  ii  directly  contributed  to  this  result  (comp.   §  xxv.  3).     It  is  at  least 
certain  that  the  Gentile  world  wholly  lost  sight  of  the  unity  of  God,  to  its 


1  See,  in  the  Old  Testament,  Exod.  xx.  3  ;  Deut.  iv.  35  ;  vi.  4 ;  Isaiah  xlv.  22 — 25. 
In  the  New  Testament,  John  xvii.  3  ;  i  Cor.  viii.  5,  fi  ;   i  Tim.  ii.  5. 
*  I  Kings  xviii.  27  ;  ioaiuh  xl.  19  ;  xliv.  10,  and  following. 


THE  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD.  251 

own  detriment  ;*  that  Israel  could  scarcely  be  cured,  by  means  of  severe 
discipline,  of  its  tendency  to  idolatry  ;  and  that  the  youthful  Christianity 
also  had  to  withstand  the  temptation  first  to  a  heathen  Dualism,  and  later 
even  to  Tritheism  and  Tetratheism.  In  every  form,  however,  Polytheism 
is  a  fruit  of  sin.  The  darkened  understanding  could  no  longer  raise  itselt 
to  the  clear  conception  of  the  one  absolute  perfection,  because  the  imagina- 
tion was  at  the  same  time  captivated  and  deceived  by  the  varying 
brightness  of  the  creation.  The  sinful  heart  sought  to  express  its  admira- 
tion, love,  or  terror,  in  the  superstitious  adoration  of  the  visible  and  finite. 
The  impure  will  reached  forth  towards  the  enjoyment  of  the  senses,  so 
frequently  associated  with  the  Polytheistic  form  of  worship  (cultus),  and 
the  sullied  conscience  forgot  the  holiness  of  God,  of  which  the  recognition 
— so  closely  allied  to  that  of  His  unity — was  forbidden.  Thus  very  soon 
was  "  the  glory  of  the  uncorruptible  God  changed  into  that  of  a  corruptible 
creature." 

4.  As  opposed  to  so  much  folly,  the  defence  of  the  unity  of  God  has  not 
always  been  conducted  with  equal  success.  Rather  strange,  for  instance, 
sounds  the  appeal  of  Cyprian,4  to  the  analogy  of  the  animal  kingdom  : 
"  Rex  unus  apibus,  dux  units  gregibus."  With  infinitely  greater  force  is  this 
truth  upheld  by  each  renewed  manifestation  of  the  Supreme  Majesty  of 
Him,  who  will  not  give  His  glory  to  another.  The  recognition  thereof 
stands  thus  also  in  immediate  connection  with  that  of  God's  Sovereignty,5 
and  is  absolutely  necessary,  in  order  to  the  indispensable  unity  of  the 
religious  and  moral  life.6  It  binds  together  the  whole  of  humanity,  as 
being  formed  by  one  Creator,  responsible  to  one  Lawgiver,  and  called  to 
conformity  to  one  Ideal  of  the  highest  perfection.7 

Comp.  LACTANTIUS,  Div.  h.stt ,  i.,  c.  3 — 10;  D.  WYTTENBACH,  Disput.  de  Unitate 
Dei,  in  his  Opuscula,  ii.,  pp.  373,  sqq.  On  the  question  as  to  Cicero's  mode  of 
thinking  on  this  point,  an  important  Monitum  in  the  Charta  Theol.  of  H.  BOUMAN,  i.,  p. 
172,  sqq.  (1853).  On  the  origin  of  Monotheism,  a  treatise  by  P.  HOFSTEDE  DE  GROOT, 
W.  in  L.,  1861,  ii. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Peculiarity  of  the  belief  in  the  unity  of  God,  from  an  Israelitish,  Islamitish,  and 
Christian  point  of  view. — Further  elucidation  of  the  testimonies  of  Holy  Scripture. — 
History  and  criticism  of  the  defence  of  the  belief  in  God's  unity  put  forth  within  the 
Christian  Church.— Permanent  religious  and  ethical  importance  of  this  dogma. 


SECTION   XLVII. — THE  ATTRIBUTES   OF  GOD. 

The  eternally  indivisible  light  of  absolute  perfection  inevitably 
breaks  out,  for  our  finite  vision,  into  different  colours  :  in  God's 


3  Rom.  i.  18  —  32.  s  Deut.  xxxii.  39. 

4  De  idol,  vanit.,  c.  5.  6  Matt.  vi.  24. 

7  Rom.  iii.  29 ;  Jas.  iv.  12  ;  Matt.  v.  48. 


252  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

attributes  His  nature  reveals  itself.  It  is  on  this  account  just  as 
necessary  on  the  one  hand,  accurately  to  distinguish  in  Christian 
Dogmatics  the  different  attributes  of  God,  as  it  is,  on  the  other 
hand,  impossible  to  deduce,  divide,  and  combine  these  in  a  way 
which  leaves  no  single  difficulty  remaining.  Anthropomorphism 
and  Anthropopathism  can  hardly  be  avoided  in  so  doing,  but 
neither  on  the  other  hand  need  it  be  entirely  avoided. 

1.  The  discussion  of  the  idea  of  God  and  the  unity  of  the  Divine  Nature 
leads  now  to  the  examination  of  the  doctrine  of  His  Attributes.      The 
importance  of  this  examination  is  at  once  manifest.     The  question  what 
we   are  to  understand  by  the  Attributes  or  Perfections  of  God,    is    that 
which  in  this  conn  ction  first  demands  an  answer. 

2.  By  properties  (attributes)  of  a  being  we  understand  the  qualities  by  which 
it,  in  distinction  from  others,  is  what  it  is.     God's  properties  are  thus  the 
qualities  of  His  Nature  in   consequence  of  the  combined  possession  of 
which  He  is  justly  named  the  absolutely  perfect  One.     They  are  called 
also  the  virtues  of  God  (d/serai),1  attributes,  predicates,  proprieties.     Earlier 
Dogmatists  have  occasionally  distinguished  between  these  different  notions, 
but  without  the  clearness  of  the  conception  gaining  anything  thereby.     In 
any  case  there  is  here  also  this  peculiar  connection  between  Property  and 
Nature,  that  the  latter  is  known  by  means  of  the  former.     Now  the  exist- 
ence of  such   properties  in  the  Divine  Nature  flows  of  itself  out  of  the 
notion  of  personality,  and  is  accordingly — in  harmony  with  the  teaching 
of  Scripture2 — expressed  in   the    Confession.8      The    recognition    thereof 
detracts  nothing  from  that  of  God  s  unity,  for  this  reason  that  it  is  a  living 
unity,  not  a  mere  sameness  or  uniformity — just  as  little  does  it  this,  as  the 
observation  of  the  law  of  the  division  of  the  light  into  colours  is  opposed 
to  that  of  the  harmony  of  the  light.     Only  we  must  take  care  not  to  set 
God's  Nature  and  His  Attributes  one  against  the  other,  or  to  regard  these 
last  as  standing  in  a  merely  external  relationship  to  the  former,  whereas 
they  are  in  reality  absolutely  inseparable  from  His  Nature.      Whatever  is 
predicated  of  God,  is  not  quality,  but  essence* 

3.  Is  the  distinction  of  different  attributes  simply  the  fruit  of  our  limited 
capacity,  and  consequently  something  purely  subjective ;  or  has  it,  on  the 
contrary,  an  objective  ground  in  the  nature  of  God  Himself?     It  is  impera- 
tively necessary,  before  we  go  any  farther,  to  take  this  question  into  con- 
sideration.    For,  suppose  that  the  distinction  referred  to  has  no  foundation 
whatever  in  the  reality  of  things,  then  our  whole  investigation  has  lost  much 
of  its  significance  and  worth.    We  have  then  simply  to  declare  with  Quenstadt 
that  "God,  if  we  wish  to  speak  properly  and  accurately,  has  no  proper- 
ties/' 6  and  then  to  pass  at  once  to  the  doctrine  of  His  works.    Yet  we 

1  i  Pet.  ii.  9. 

2  Psalms  xix.,  civ. ;  Rom.  i.  20. 

*  Nethtrlands  Confession,  Artt.  i.,  ii. 

4  "  Quidquid  de  Deo  dicitur,  non  qualitas  est,  sed  essentia. " — AUGUSTINE. 

*  Deus,  si  proprie  et  accurate  loqui  velimus,  nullas  habet  proprietates. 


THE  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD.  253 

feel  we  cannot  but  reject  this  statement  as  one-sided  and  arbitrary.     It  is 
true  that  in  God  all  perfection  is  one ;  but  in  the  revelation  of  Himself  this 
perfection  becomes  actually  manifest  in  a  varying  light  and  in  different  ways. 
Nominalism,  which  merely  attaches  subjective   significance  to  the  whole 
distinction  in  this  domain,  leads  thus  inevitably  to  a  wrong  conception 
alike  of  the  Christian  idea  of  revelation,  and  of  the  Christian  idea  of  God. 
The  reason  why  Schleiermacher,   Hegel,   Strauss,   and   others,  refuse   to 
speak  in  this  place  of  a  real  distinction,  objectively  founded  in  God  Him- 
self, lies   in   their  more  or  less  Pantheistical  tendency  of  thought.     No 
doubt,  if  God  is  simply  another  name  for  the  Universum,  it  is  in  this  case 
absurd  to  speak  of  an  essential  distinction  in  His  spiritual  attributes.     If 
He  is,  on  the  other  hand,  true  Personality,  then  the  different  qualities 
which  He  reveals  must  assuredly  be  something  essential  in  Himself ;  since 
otherwise  the  revelation  of  Himself  would  be  not  the  expression,  but  the 
denial  of  His  innermost  nature.     We  must  thus,  in  regard  to  these  pro- 
perties, firmly  maintain  with  Ruthe,  "  They  are  not  simply  the  product  of 
our  intellect  in  its  reflecting   upon  God,  but  have   existed   in   essential 
objectivity  in  God,  before  all  activity  of  the  distinguishing  human  intellect 
was  called  into  existence."     God's  knowing  cannot  be  wholly  the  same  as 
His  willing;  His  wrath  must  also  be  something  in  itself  different  from  His 
long-sulTering  ;  He  Himself  must  essentially  stand  in  a  different  relation  to 
the  morally  good,  and  to  the  morally  bad  ;  or  else  the  eternal  distinction 
between  good  and  evil  at  last  falls  away.     According  to  this  view,  He  by 
no  means  becomes,  as  is  objected  by  Schleiermacher,  a  composite  Being  ; 
but  precisely  in  this  way  becomes  for  us  the  truly  personal  and  living  God, 
who  reveals  Himself  as  He  actually  is.      Opposition  between  the  different 
attributes,  it  is  true,  is  just  as  little  conceivable  as  an  even  momentary 
separation  of  one  attribute  from  another.     But  their  essential  difference, 
and  at  the  same  time  capacity  for  being  distinguished,  must  be  recognised 
as  existing  not  simply  for  our  consciousness,  but  as  immanent  in  the  Divine 
Nature  itself ;  if,  at  least,  we  are  to  retain  a  Theistic  standpoint,  and  regard 
God's  revelation  of  Himself  not  simply  as  a  wholly  inadequate  accommo- 
dation to  our  needs,  but  as  a  faithful  and  sufficiently  clear  reflection  of  the 
highest  reality.     "  The  Divine  attributes  belong  to  God,  not  as  though 
they  made  up  His  nature,  as  though  His  whole  being  consisted  only  of 
the  combination  of  the  same  ;  but  because  they  are  \\\Q  forms  and  outward 
expressions  (Richtuiigdi),   in  which    His   Being  is  revealed   and   becomes 
manifest"  (Bruch). 

4.  In  order  to  attain  to  a  knowledge — as  far  as  possible  satisfactory — of  the 
attributes  of  God,  it  is  not  sufficient  to  combine  ths  principal  utterances  of 
Holy  Scripture,  as  perfectly  as  we  can,  into  one  whole.  In  this  way,  indeed, 
we  obtain  Biblical  Theology,  but  as  yet  no  Christian  Dogmatics,  in  the 
scientific  sense  of  the  word.  That  which  is  here  incumbent  upon  us  is  to 
learn  to  recognise  the  attributes  of  God  in  their  mutual  relationships,  and 
in  their  necessary  connection  with  His  Being.  In  what  sense,  and  to  what 
extent,  we  may  speak  of  a  knowledge  of  God,  we  have  already  seen 
(§  xliii.).  It  is  now  simply  a  question  whether  there  exist  means  of  so 
learning  to  know  God  from  His  works  of  creation,  that  His  attributes  also 
shall  reveal  themselves  in  sufficiently  clear  light  before  our  eyes.  To  this 


254  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

question  an  affirmative  answer  has  been  given  by  the  Scholasticism  of  the 
Middle  Ages,6  an  answer  which  has  been  supported  by  that  of  the  seven- 
teenth century.  They  even  recommended  three  ways,  by  which  to  rise  to 
a  conception  as  pure  as  it  is  possible  to  attain  to — the  way  of  denial 
(negationis\  the  way  of  elevation  (eminentice),  and  the  way  of  causality 
\causalitatis].  By  the  first  of  these  was  separated  from  the  idea  of  God  all 
that  belongs  to  man's  limited  condition ;  by  the  second,  all  perfection  of  the 
creature  was  ascribed  in  an  infinite  degree  to  God;  by  the  third  were 
obtained  as  a  logical  result  all  the  attributes  which  are  contained  in  the 
idea  of  an  infinite  First  Cause.  Far  be  it  from  us  to  look  with  contempt 
upon  this  endeavour  to  justify  as  reasonable  that  which  faith  recognises  as 
true.  If  it  manifests  the  traces  of  the  limitation  of  all  human  thought ;  yet 
where  the  supporting  power  of  wings  is  wanting  one  must  sometimes  make 
shift  with  crutches.  The  Scripture  itself,  in  a  number  of  places,  points 
now  to  the  one,  now  to  the  other  of  these  ways;  and  let  him  who  rejects 
and  cuts  away  all  these,  see  that  he  has  something  more  solid  and  better 
to  offer  to  the  intelligent  belief.  Yet  it  can  scarcely  be  denied  that 
this  method,  upon  closer  examination,  promises  far  more  than  it  really 
gives.  In  place  of  there  being  an  essential  distinction,  the  one  way  here 
passes  over  insensibly  into  the  other.  The  first  naturally  loses  itself  in 
the  second,  both  are  resolved  into  the  third,  and  the  question  finally  arises, 
with  what  right  we  form,  from  our  own  idea  of  causality,  conclusions  as  to 
the  attributes  of  the  Supreme  Being.  Even  with  the  most  favourable 
answer,  we  can  hardly  avoid  thinking  of  the  war  of  the  Titans,  who  pile 
"  Ossa  upon  Pelion,  and  again  upon  Ossa  Olympus,"  without  in  reality 
making  their  way  to  heaven.  Infinitely  preferable  to  the  method  of  an 
arid  reasoning  is  a  thoughtful  observance  of  God's  revelation  of  Himself, 
in  His  word,  works,  and  ways,  which  rival  each  other  in  their  unceasing 
manifestation  of  His  attributes. 

5.  A  nearer  division   of  the   attributes   of  God    thus   revealed   appears 
desirable  on  account  of  the  great  mass  of  material  at  our  disposal,  and  has 
also  in  reality  been  attempted  in  different  ways  in  earlier  and  later  times. 
It  has  been  attempted — to  name  some  examples — to  divide  them  into 
proper  and  improper,  positive  and  negative,  absolute  and  relative,  original 
and  derived,  natural  and  moral  attributes,  and  so  on.     No  single  one  of 
these  divisions  is  there  which  does  not  call  forth  the  old  confession,  "God 
is  great,  and  we  comprehend  Him  not ;"  no  single  one,  also,  against  which 
no  objections  of  more  or  less  weight  may  not  be  adduced.     No  wonder 
that  neither  in  Holy  Scripture  nor  yet  in  the  Church  Confessions  any 
attempt  at  such  division  is  made.     If,  however,  such  division  is  thought  de- 
sirable in  the  interest  of  a  systematic  treatment,  we  believe  we  shall  encounter 
comparatively  the  fewest  difficulties  if  in  the  King  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  we 
distinguish  the  Majesty  which  He  has  in  Himself,  and  the  Glory  which  He 
outwardly  manifests  ;  the  inner  brightness,  consequently,  and  the  outward 
radiance  of  the  Light ;    the  attributes  which  relate  to  His  own  mode  of 
existence,  and  those  which  become  known  to  us  in  His  mode  of  operation. 

6.  Before  we  pass  on  to  the  treatment  of  both  of  these,  yet  a  word  on 


•  Dionysius  the  Areopagite,  Durandus  ;  to  a  certain  extent  also  A.  Hales. 


THE   ATTRIBUTES   OF   GOD.  25; 

the  Anthropomorphism  and  Anthropopathism  of  which  our  mode  of  expres- 
sion in  this  domain  aftords  such  abundant  evidence.  That  both  ot  the 
former,  (the  ascribing  of  human  shapes  and  forms,)  as  of  the  latter,  (the 
attributing  of  human  emotions — such  as  anger,  grief,  joy,  etc. — to  God,) 
many  traces  are  found,  especially  in  the  oldest  writings  of  the  Bible,  is 
well  known.7  But  also  in  the  most  scientific  conceptions  of  the  Supreme 
Being  one  meets  constantly  with  modes  of  thinking,  in  which,  even  uncon- 
sciously, something  of  a  finite  human  character  is  transferred  to  God. 
That  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Christian  Dogmatist,  as  far  as  possible  to 
guard  against  this,  will  be  doubted  by  no  one.  Holy  Scripture  itself  seeks 
constantly  to  arm  us  against  any  confusion  of  the  human  and  Divine.8 
There  is  an  Anthropomorphism  and  Anthropopathism  which  is  to  be 
distinctly  condemned,  it  is  "where  man  compares  God  with  himself,  and 
reasons  concerning  God  from  his  own  limited  point  of  view ;  like  the  snails 
and  oysters  from  their  own  narrow  shells,  and  the  hedgehog  out  of  his  own 
self-contained  Ego  "  (Clemens  Alexandrinus).  Nevertheless,  also,  on  the 
other  side,  the  avoiding  of  all  anthropomorphic  expressions  is  just  as  little 
necessary  as  it  is  possible.  Of  God  man  can  speak  only  in  a  human 
manner ;  and,  if  our  nature  is  truly  related  to  that  of  God,  how  can  we 
conceive  of  Him  without  the  admixture  of  a  single  trait  derived  from  our- 
selves ?  This  is  the  deep  significance  of  Jacobi's  words  :  "  In  creating 
man  God  theomorphosised ;  therefore  man  necessarily  anthropomorpho- 
sises."  "God  condescends  to  us,  in  order  that  we  may  rise  to  Him.'" 
Anthropomorphism  and  Anthropopathism  is  therefore  by  no  means  the 
antipode,  but  rather  the  imperfect  approximating  expression  of  eternal  truth  ; 
and  in  the  interpretation,  also,  of  Holy  Scripture,  our  part  is  simply  to 
trace  out,  as  far  as  possible,  the  truth  underlying  such  expressions.  In 
doing  so  we  must  take  care  that  we  explain  the  anthropomorphic  concep- 
tions by  the  more  purely  spiritual  ones,  not  the  converse,  and  that  we  are 
guarded  by  a  certain  spiritual  tact  against  "  thinking  after  an  earthly 
manner  "  (TO,  tiriyeta.  (j>povw)  of  the  supreme  majesty  of  God.  Thus  regarded 
and  explained,  even  the  anthropopathic  expressions  of  Scripture  become 
the  means  of  a  better  knowledge  of  God ;  a  sublime  accommodation  to 
human  wants  and  weaknesses,  sanctified  for  the  eye  of  faith,  since  God's 
own  Son  has  appeared  as  man  on  earth.  Anthropomorphism  belongs  thus 
also  to  the  necessary  form  of  the  revelations  of  God ;  and  let  him  who 
takes  offence  at  the  husk  see  that  he  does  not  lose  the  kernel,  to  retain — 
a  merely  apathetic  God. 

Compare  J.  F.  BRUCH,  Lehre  von  den  gb'ttl.  Eigenschaften  (1842)  ;  C.  B.  MOLL,  De 
jmto  attributorum  Dei  discrimine  (1853),  i.  [JOHN  HOWARD  HlNTON,  Lectures  on 
Acquaintance  -with  God  (London,  1856),  Lecture  vi.] 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 
The  importance  of  the  examination  as  to  the  doctrine  of  the  attributes  of  God. — Is  the 

7  See,  e.g.,  Gen.  vi.  6  ;  viii.  21  ;  xi.  5,  6  ;  and  many  other  places. 

8  See,  e.g.,  Ps.  1.  21  ;  cxxi.  4;  Isa.  xl.  28  ;  Hos.  xi.  9. 

8  Condescendit  nobis  Deus,  ut  nos  consurgamus. — AUGUSTINE. 


256  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

recognition  of  many  attributes  in  the  Divine  nature  consistent  with  that  of  His  unity? — 
Is  it  not  sufficient  simply  to  consult  the  Holy  Scriptures,  in  order  to  arrive  at  an  accurate 
deduction  and  classification  of  the  Divine  attributes  ?— Further  review  of  the  Scholastic 
method. — Resume  and  criticism  of  the  principal  modes  of  dividing  the  Divine  attributes. 
— The  bright  and  the  dark  side  of  Anthropomorphism  and  Anthropopathism  in  the 
Theological  domain. 


SECTION  XLVIII.— GOD'S   MODE  OF   EXISTENCE. 

The  attributes  which  have  relation  to  God's  mode  of  existence 
are,  properly,  those  which  must  be  ascribed  to  His  nature  in  itself, 
conceived  of  so  far  as  possible  without  any  relation  to  the  creature. 
They  have  their  basis  in  the  fact  that  God,  as  Absolute  Being, 
independent  of  all  beyond  Him,  has  life  in  Himself;  so  that  He, 
existing  entirely  above  the  limits  of  time  and  space,  and — as  a  per- 
fectly spiritual  nature — invisible  and  incomprehensible  for  the 
creature,  is  in  Himself  beyond  description  glorious  and  blessed. 

At  the  beginning  of  our  consideration  of  God's  mode  of  existence,  we 
are  involuntarily  reminded  of  the  well-known  account  of  Augustine  and  the 
lad  sporting  on  the  sea  shore,  and^ repeat  the  words  of  the  Psalmist,  "Such 
knowledge  is  too  wonderful  for  me ;  it  is  high,  I  cannot  attain  unto  it." 
The  attributes  of  this  first  class  are,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  the  most 
difficult  to  define,  and  in  their  treatment  call  for  the  most  careful  and 
reverent  consideration. 

1.  Starting  from  the  conception  of  God  we  have  settled,  we  cannot  but 
further  assert  that  God  possesses — in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word — life  in 
Himself.     This  property  (Aseitas]  can  be  ascribed  to  none  but  the  Most 
High.     Man  also  can  have  life  in  himself,  but  only  in  communion  with  the 
Son  of  God,  yea,  even  to  the  Son  Himself  it  is  given  by  the  Father.2     The 
Father  alone  has  it  from  no  one  ;  in  Himself  He  has  the  cause,  the  source, 
the  power  of  His  life  ;  He  is  causa  sui,  precisely  because  He  is  the  abso- 
lute, infinite  Being.     For  us  it  is  impossible  further  to  sound  this  depth ; 
yet  we  clearly  perceive  that  a  non-recognition  of  this  truth  must  lead  to  a 
destruction  of  the  whole  conception  of  God. 

2.  He  who  thus  possesses  life  in  Himself  must  be  absolutely  independent 
of  all  which  exists  beyond  Himself.    From  this  independence  (libertas  meta- 
physica)  it  follows  as  a  direct  consequence,  that  God  needs  not  to  receive 
anything  of  any  one,  in  order  to  remain  most  glorious  and  blessed  in  Him- 
self.    Every  creature  needs  other  creatures,  all  stand  in  need  of  Him ;  but 
He  is  not  served  with  men's  hands,  as  though   He  needed  anything?     This 
truth  concerning  the  independence  (awrdpma)  of  God,  not  recognised  in 

1  John  vi.  53.  *  John  v.  26,  •  Acts  xvii.  25. 


GOD'S   MODE  OF   EXISTENCE.  257 

Heathendom,  we  hear  confessed  in  Israel,*  and  soon  proclaimed  by  Jesus 
and  His  Apostles.5  It  is  to  a  certain  extent  the  test  of  the  purity  of  our 
conception  of  God,  whether  it  acknowledges  this  independence  truly  with- 
out any  limitation ;  since  the  Mysticism  of  every  age  has  limited  or  con- 
tested it.  Yet  from  a  Theistic  standpoint  it  must  be  maintained,  however 
difficult  the  thought  may  be  to  realise,  that  God  needs  no  creation  in  order 
to  be  Himself,  although,  as  the  highest  Love,  He  will  not  live  without 
creatures  of  His  own.  Only  we  must  take  heed  lest  this  absolute  inde- 
pendence of  God  be  conceived  of  as  Stoical  self-sufficiency,  which  would 
be  mere  selfishness.  It  must  rather  be  conceived  of  as  Love's  inex- 
haustible fulness  of  life,  which  can  give  all,  without  needing  to  receive  any- 
thing. This  thought,  far  indeed  from  obscuring  for  our  eyes  the  majesty 
of  God,  rather  increases  it ;  when  it  becomes  apparent  that  He  who  needs 
not  the  greatest  does  not  despise  even  the  smallest.8 

3.  The  absolutely  independent  Being  cannot  be  thought  of  otherwise 
than  as  exalted  also  above  that  time  in  which  all  finite  things  exist, — in 
other  words,  as  eternal.  When  we  speak  of  God's  eternity,  we  mean  that  He 
just  as  little  knows  a  beginning  to  His  existence  as  He  will  ever  know  an  end. 
In  an  exalted  and  inimitable  manner  is  this  expressed  in  Holy  Scripture 
(e.g.,  Ps.  xc.  2  ;  cii.  26 — 28;  I  Tim.  vi  16  ;  2  Peter  iii.  8).  Without  begin- 
ning, He  is  Himself  the  Rock  of  eternal  ages,  in  distinction  also  from  the 
earliest  object  which  has  been  called  into  existence  by  Him.  If  we  finite 
creatures  cannot  possibly  form  to  ourselves  an  adequate  conception  of 
eternity,  yet  it  is  very  soon  apparent  that  here  we  have  not  to  think  of  an 
infinite  succession  of  moments,  but  of  an  absolute  superiority  to  all  time ; 
in  consequence  of  which  time  also  is  through  Him,  while  He,  the  King  of 
eternity,7  remains  absolutely  independent  of  time.  His  existence  is  not 
determined  by  time,  it  is  an  eternal  To-day,  without  earlier  or  later,  past  or 
future,  "a  living  eternity  blooming  forth  in  unfading  youth"  (Martensen). 
Here,  however,  every  idea  of  rigid  immobility  is  to  be  rejected ;  the  Petra 
is  no  petrifaction.  We  cannot  otherwise  conceive  of  the  case  than  that 
the  Eternal  regards  things  under  the  form  of  the  time  in  which,  according 
to  His  will,  they  arose ;  so  that  this  eternity  also  by  no  means  prevents  Him 
from  directly  intervening  by  word  and  action  in  the  course  of  events.  But 
He  looks  upon  the  finite  from  the  light  of  eternity,  and  from  its  stand- 
point, and  time  can  be  nothing  for  Him  but  the  condition  under  which  all 
that  is  not  Himself  successively  appears  and  vanishes.  He  creates,  orders, 
and  changes  time,  without  the  latter  having  any  influence  upon  Him  ;  and 
must  thus  be  thought  of  as  independently  co-existing  with  all  things,  past, 
present,  and  to  come. 

Most  closely  connected  with  this  eternity  of  the  Divine  Being  is  the 
Uncliangeableness,  in  virtue  of  which  every  idea  of  modification  in  His  form 
of  existence  is  utterly  excluded,8  since  He  dwells  in  eternity ;  so  that  His 
perfection  just  as  little  admits  of  increase  as  of  diminution.  In  so  far  then 
it  is  less  accurate  to  speak  of  God's  nature,  since  this  word,  by  virtue  of  its 

4  Job  xxii.  2,  3  ;  Ps.  1.  10 — 12.  7  I  Tim.  i.  17. 

4  Matt.  xi.  25  ;  Rom.  xi.  34.  8  Mai.  iii.  6;  James  i.  17. 

•  Ps.  cxiii.  5,  6;  Isa.  Ivii.  15. 


258  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

derivation — natura,  from  nasci — necessarily  suggests  the  idea  of  growing  or 
becoming.  It  is  better  to  speak  of  the  Being  (  Wezenheid]  of  God,  as  indi- 
cating that  which  in  itself  from  eternity  to  eternity  is.9  If  proof  were  yet 
necessary  that  this  conception  of  God  in  its  pure  sublimity  is,  as  to  its  ulti- 
mate source,  due  to  a  higher  revelation,  this  proof  would  be  afforded  us  by 
the  history  of  philosophy,  which  makes  clearly  manifest  how  frequently 
human  thought  has  suffered  shipwreck  on  this  rock.  Many  a  speculative 
Theology  is,  properly  speaking,  nothing  but  a  Theogony  ;  and  yet  sound 
Christian  philosophic  thought  perceives  that  any  denial  or  limitation  of 
this  Divine  property  must  necessarily  lead  to  absurdity.  What  strong 
consolation  flows  from  a  believing  acknowledgment  thereof,  can  here  be 
only  indicated.  Compare  the  ninetieth  Psalm. 

4.  He  who  is  thus  exalted  above  all  time,  cannot  possibly  be  held  cap- 
tive by  space.  The  acknowledgment  of  God's  eternity  must  necessarily  lead 
to  that  of  His  Omnipresence.  If  we  men  are,  in  regard  to  our  body,  bound 
by  the  laws  of  space,  even  while  our  spirit  transports  itself  to  distant  regions, 
the  Infinite  One  is  exalted  above  all  the  bounds  of  space.  Just  as  little 
as  time  sets  limits  to  His  being,  does  space  impose  them  on  His  almighty 
will.  When  therefore,  in  harmony  with  Holy  Scripture,10  we  speak  of 
God  as  incommensurable  and  everywhere  present,  we  have  to  understand 
this  last  expression,  not  in  the  extensive,  but  in  the  dynamical  sense,  and  to 
be  careful  to  keep  ourselves  free  from  all  Pantheistic  leaven.  Not  a  substan- 
tial, but  an  operative  presence  of  God  in  every  point  of  His  creation  must 
be  ascribed  to  Him.  In  creating  He  has  not  limited,  but  most  gloriously 
revealed  Himself.  With  His  life -a  waken  ing  power  He  is  active  in  all 
things  ;  but,  nevertheless,  is  by  no  means  imprisoned  in  His  own  work.  He 
embraces,  rules,  penetrates  it — not  in  the  Pantheistic,  but  in  the  Theistic 
sense  of  the  term —being  neither  excluded  nor  included  by  any  extent  of 
space.  The  manifestation  of  this  Divine  presence  is  differently  modified 
according  to  the  different  domains  of  life.  It  is  manifested  under  one 
form  in  the  material,  under  another  in  the  spiritual  world ;  more  directly 
was  God's  presence  displayed  in  Israel  than  among  the  Gentile  nations.11 
But  this  presence  itself — here  not  acknowledged,  there  clearly  acknowledged; 
iiere  desired,  there  dreaded — is  never  and  nowhere  a  dream.  "  The  Omni- 
presence of  God  must  not  be  conceived  of  as  uniree,  which  is  the  root 
error  of  Pantheism,  but  as  the  presence  of  the  free,  self-determining  God, 
who  presents  Himself  under  a  different  aspect  in  relation  to  the  different 
creations  :'  (Martensen). 

With  this  omnipresence  of  God,  the  fact  that  Holy  Scripture  definitely 
represents  heaven  as  the  dwelling  and  throne  of  God  is  not  in  conflict. 
God,  who  is  everywhere,  manifests  His  glory  more  peculiarly  and  brightly 
in  that  region  of  His  creation  which  we  are  accustomed  to  call  heaven ; 
just  as  the  sun,  which  shines  everywhere,  yet  especially  displays  its  full 
splendour  in  the  firmament  However  frequently  it  is  asserted  that 
heaven  is  not  to  be  thought  of  as  a  place,  but  merely  as  a  condition, 
yet  the  idea  of  locality  cannot  be  wholly  banished  from  our  conception. 
Nothing  prevents  our  thinking,  in  connection  with  the  word  heaven,  of  that 

9  Exod.  iii.  14.          10  Ps.  cxxxix.  7 — 10  ;  Jer.  xxiii.  23,  24.          "  Ps.  Ixxvi.  I. 


GOD'S   MODE   OF   EXISTENCE.  259 

higher  than  earthly  and  material  sphere  of  things  to  which  Jesus  points  us 
when  He  speaks  of  "our  Father  in  the  heavens."12  If  this  conception  can 
only  to  a  certain  extent  be  reconciled  with  that  of  God's  actual  nearness,13 
this  is  in  consequence  of  the  limitation  of  our  human  mode  of  thinking. 
But  this  we  feel,  nevertheless,  with  full  certainty,  that  He  who  in  this 
sense  is  everywhere  present,  may  also  be  called  absolutely  incommensur- 
able. A  measure  can  be  applied  only  to  that  which  is -finite,  enclosed 
within  certain  limits.  Here,  however,  every  standard  fails  us,  because  the 
object  itself,  to  which  this  is  to  be  applied,  is  absolutely  boundless.  To 
such  an  extent,  the  incommensurableness  of  God  is  most  intimately  connected 
with  the  spiritual  simplicity  of  His  being. 

5.  From  what  has  been  said,  it  follows  with  equal  necessity  that  God,  as  a 
purely  spiritual  being,  is  invisible  and  incomprehensible  for  every-creature. 
The  invisibleness  of  God  is  the  natural  consequence  of  His  incorporeity, 
and  the  metaphysical  ground  of  the  strict  prohibition  of  idolatry.14     It  was 
nothing  more  than  idle  fancy  when,  in  earlier  and  later  times,  a  fine  body 
of  light  of  the  most  exceeding  beauty  has  been  ascribed  to  God.     No  one 
has  ever  seen  God  ;15  no  one  can  see  Him  and  live.16     Even  in  the  highest 
rapture  of  spirit,  no  seer  of  the  Old  Testament  beholds  and  describes  the 
face  of  Him  who  sits  upon  the  throne  of  heaven ;  not  even  where  His 
robe  or  His  form  is  indicated.17     Everywhere  where  He  is  thus  said  to  have 
been  seen,  or  to  have  appeared,  this  must  be  regarded  as  having  taken 
place  through  the  intervention,  e.g.,  of  an  angel's  appearance,  or  some  other 
form  of  revelation  ;18  and  even  a  promise  like  that  of  Matt.  v.  8  can  be 
taken  only  in  a  metaphorical  sense.     The  popular  belief  that  he  who  had 
seen  God  mustdie,1"  had  as  its  foundation,  not  only  an  evil  conscience,  but 
also  a  very  reasonable  conviction.    Even  the  cherubim  veil  their  face  before 
His  glory  (5  £a),  which  is  yet  no  more  than  the  radiance  of  His  adorable 
essence.     That  essence  itself  cannot,  from   the   nature  of  the   case,  be 
anything  other  than  incomprehensible  for  us.20     To  that  which  has  been 
before  said  (§  xlii.)  on  this  point,  it  is  here  necessary  only  to  add  that 
this  incomprehensibleness  is,   least  of  all,  the  consequence  of*  anything 
imperfect  or  self-contradictory  in  the  Divine  nature,  but  solely  of  our  nar- 
rowness.    "  Apprehendi  aliquatenus  potest :  11011  comprehendi. "     This  has  been 
at  all  times  acknowledged,2  but  in  a  tone  rather  of  the  most  profound 
adoration  than  of  melancholy  complaint. 

6.  Nevertheless,  whatever  problems  may  remain  unsolved,  no  conclusion 
can  be  more  accurate  than  this,  that  He  in  whom  all  these  properties  are 
most  perfectly  united,  must  be  in  Himself,  in  the  highest  degree,  glorious 
and  blessed.     As  such  He  is  accordingly  also  described  by  the  Apostle ;  ** 
and  not  otherwise  than  thus  can  reason,  enlightened  by  faith,  think  of  the 
highest  Majesty.     "  Semper  agens,"  says  Augustine,  "  et  semper  quietus ; 


12  Matt.  vi.  9.  "  Isaiah  vi.  I  ;  Dan.  vii.  9. 

13  Acts  xvii.  27.  ls  John  xii.  41. 

14  Exod.  xx.  4,  5.  l9  Judges  xiii.  22. 

15  John  i.  1 8.  *  Ps.  cxlv   3. 

16  Exod.  xxxiii.  I&— 23.  21  Job  xi.  7—9  ;  Rom.  xi.  33,  34. 

22  I  Tim.  vi.  15 

S  2 


26O  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

colligens,  et  non  egens  ;  quserens,  cum  nihil  desit  Tibi ;  nunquam  inops,  et 
gaudens  lucri."  Even  so,  here  all  the  conditions  of  the  highest  glory  and 
blessedness  are  present,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  no  single  obstacle  thereto. 
The  highest  joy  is  tasted  before  His  face,8  and  thus  yet  more  by  Himself. 
The  conception  of  this  idea  is  far  beyond  our  power  •  but  the  idea  itself  is 
of  undeniable  importance,  as  the  basis  of  the  doctrine  of  the  creation,  that 
God  needs  not  the  Universe  in  order  to  be  the  absolutely  Blessed  One  in 
Himself. 

Comp.  J.  A.  DORNER,  Ueber  die  rkhtige  Fassung  der  Unveranderlichk,  Gottes,  in  the 
Jahrb.  fur  dcutsche  Theol.  (1856)  ii.,  (1858)  Hi.  ;  C.  J.  TRIP,  Die  Theophanien  des  A.  B. 
(Hague  Society,  1856);  F.  FABRI,  Zeit  und  Ewigkeit  (1865). 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

What  becomes  of  God's  independence,  where  the  Theistic  standpoint  has  been 
abandoned  ? — Further  explanation  of  the  idea  of  eternity. — The  Omnipnesentia  sub- 
stantiate et  operativa. — The  Theophanies  under  the  Old  Covenant. — The  Speculative  and 
Theosophic  conceptions  of  God's  corporality. — The  proper  nature  of  the  perfect  blessedness 
of  God. 


SECTION  XLIX. — GOD'S  MODE  OF  WORKING. 

The  inner  majesty  of  God's  nature  reveals  itself  in  His  method  of 
working,  bearing  the  most  indisputable  traces  as  well  of  a  Divine 
thought  as  of  a  Divine  will.  To  the  former  are  ascribed  with  perfect 
justice  the  attributes  of  Omniscience  and  Supreme  Wisdom  ;  to  the 
latter,  those  of  Omnipotence  and  Sovereignty,  of  Holiness  and 
Righteousness,  of  Grace  and  Truth. 

1.  When  we  now  pass  over  to  those  attributes  of  the  Divine  nature, 
which  belong  to  God's  mode  of  working,  we  feel  deeply  how  difficult  it  is 
to   avoid  the  rock  of  Anthropomorphism.     The   great   mass   of  material 
calls  for  new  distinctions,  and  that  between  the  Divine  thought  and  will 
naturally  follows  from  the  idea  of  personality.     Still  we  must  by  no  means 
suppose  that  with  God — as  so  frequently  with  us — thinking  and  willing  could 
ever  be  in  opposition  the  one  to  the  other.     In  Himself  they  are  undoubtedly 
blended  together ;  yet  in  the  description  of  His  perfection  we  must  dis- 
tinguish without  separating  them. 

2.  The  first  attribute  which  must  be  ascribed  to  the  Divine  thinking  can 
be  no  other  than  that  of  Omniscience.     This  is  that  attribute  of  God  by 
virtue  of  which  He  perfectly  knows  both  Himself,  and  all  that  exists  beyond 

a  Ps.  xvi.  n. 


GOD'S   MODE   OF   WORKING.  26t 

Himself.  The  Pantheist  has  simply  a  God  who  is  thought  out ;  the  Theist, 
a  God  who  Himself  thinks.  But  the  perfectly  thinking  Spirit  must  of 
necessity  be  also  the  perfectly  knowing  Spirit.  No  wonder  that  we  hear 
the  highest  knowledge  ascribed  to  God,  already  by  those  heathen  philo- 
sophers who  had  approached  nearer  than  others  to  the  recognition  of 
His  personality.  Still  more  powerfully  was  this  expressed  by  Israel's  bards 
and  prophets,  and  under  the  New  Covenant  by  the  Apostles  of  the  Lord. 
Jesus  Hinlself  not  only  testified  in  the  most  emphatic  manner  to  this 
Divine  knowledge,8  but  also  during  His  life  on  earth  manifested  it  in  Him- 
self.4 And  indeed  we  must  at  once  feel  conscious  that  without  it  God 
could  not  possibly  uphold,  rule,  and  judge  the  world.  No  wonder  that  the 
sacred  history  contains  most  striking  instances  of  this  Divine  knowledge.5 
Equally  clear  is  it  that  the  confession  of  this  knowledge  must  fill  us  with 
profound  reverence,  but  also  with  childlike  confidence  ;  and  that  it  thus 
stands  in  direct  connection  with  our  consolation  and  sanctification.  (Com- 
pare the  hundred  and  thirty-ninth  Psalm.) 

The  idea  of  absolute  Omniscience  has  about  it  something  by  which  we 
are  involuntarily  perplexed ;  hence  the  attempt  made  long  since  to  master 
that  overpowering  idea,  as  far  as  possible,  by  some  nearer  distinction  and 
definition.  The  Divine  knowledge,  then,  is  divided  into  a  natural  know- 
ledge, which  He  has  of  Himself;  and  a  so-called  free  knowledge,  which  He 
has  of  all  that  exists  beyond  Himself.  And  then  again,  from  these  two  is 
further  distinguished  that  conditional  knowledge,  scicntia  media  or  hypo- 
thdica,  by  virtue  of  which  He  is  exactly  acquainted,  not  only  with  all  which 
will  happen,  but  also  with  all  which  would  or  would  not  happen  under  cer- 
tain non-existent  conditions  6 — the  so-called  futtiribile.  That  this  last  also 
is  known  to  God,  will  certainly  not  be  denied  :  it  is  simply  an  insignificant 
part  of  that  great  whole  which  lies  naked  and  open  before  Him.  The  only 
question  is  whether  there  is  reason  for  speaking  of  this  as  a  special  kind  of 
knowledge  ;  as  was  done  in  the  sixteenth  century  by  the  Jesuits  Fonseca 
and  Molina,  with  the  definite  purpose  of  maintaining  human  freedom  over 
against  the  Divine  Foreknowledge.  To  this  question  we,  in  common  with 
the  Dominicans,  and  the  majority  of  Reformed  Theologians,  must  return  a 
negative  answer.  A  realm  of  abstract  possibilities,  which — independent  of 
God's  will  and  purpose — could  form  an  essential  object  of  Divine  know- 
ledge, is  inconceivable  ;  and  the  difficulty  which  it  is  thus  sought  to  escape 
is  not  thereby  removed.  When,  moreover,  this  conditional  knowledge  is 
regarded  as  a  subordinate  branch  of  the  free  knowledge,  it  must  not  be 
overlooked  that  this  free  knowledge  itself,  far  indeed  from  being  in  any  sense 
of  the  word  arbitrary,  is  in  God  just  as  natural  as  the  knowledge  of  His 
own  perfections.  Avoiding,  therefore,  all  sophistical  distinctions,  let  us 
rather  simply  confess  that  absolutely  nothing  is  excluded  from  the  Divine 
knowledge. 

1  See,  for  example,  Ps.  xxxiii.  13 — 15  ;  Ezek.  xi.  5  ;  Isaiah  xliv.  7  :  Dan.  ii.  22. 

2  Cor.  xi.  II  ;  Heb.  iv.  13;  I  John  iii.  20. 
»  Matt.  vi.  8. 
4  John  ii.  25  ;  xxi.  15. 
6  See,  e.g.,  l  Sam.  ix.  15 — 17. 
8  See  examples  in  I  Sam.  xxiii.  12     2  Kings  xiii.  19. 


262  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

Just  as  impracticable  is  the  distinction  between  God's  knowledge  of  the 
past,  the  present,  and  the  future,  as  Remembrance,  Intuition,  and  Fore- 
knowledge. In  fact,  it  leads  us  to  forget  that  the  highest  perfection  is 
also  in  this  respect  for  ever  exalted  above  time  and  its  divisions.  But  least 
of  all  is  there  any  reason  for  entirely  excluding — as  was  done  in  earlier 
times  by  the  Socinians,  and  in  later  times  by  the  Groningen  school — the 
Divine  foreknowledge  from  the  category  of  His  Omniscience;  because 
otherwise,  it  was  supposed,  human  freedom  would  be  an  empty  dream.  In 
vain  is  it  sought  to  find  a  warrant  for  such  a  view  in  Holy  Scripture,7  of 
which  the  letter  and  spirit  rather  express  quite  the  contrary.  According  to 
this  theory,  God's  knowledge  would  be  constantly  increasing,  as  the  issue  of 
our  actions  becomes  apparent  to  Him ;  and,  finally,  He  would  Himself 
stand  not  above  but  below  man,  whose  power  to  foresee,  in  a  certain  degree, 
things  future,  cannot  be  denied.  He  who  thinks  this  view  necessary  in 
order  to  preserve  moral  freedom,  forgets  that  God  can  indeed  foresee  the 
free  actions  of  men  as  free  actions,  and  that  these  actions  take  place  not 
because,  but  only  after  they  have  been  foreseen  by  Him.  But  we  shall  later 
treat  of  the  connection  between  Divine  foreknowledge  and  human  freedom. 
— Finally,  as  regards  the  manner  in  which  God  knows  all  the  creation— in 
distinction  from  our  human  knowledge,  His  must  be  spoken  of  as  not  de- 
rived, but  original ;  not  imperfect,  but  complete ;  not  indefinite,  but  per- 
fectly clear  and  certain ;  not  admitting  of  increase,  but  infinitely  perfect. 
God  knows  all  things,  always,  of  and  by  Himself,  simultaneously,  from 
eternity  to  eternity.  For  the  Divine  Intelligence,  in  a  word,  all  things  are 
transparent.  He  has  not  only  eyes  everywhere;8  He  Himself  is  the  Eye 
which  sees  all  things  and  everywhere.  In  the  presence  of  this  Divine 
knowledge  we  become  conscious  of  our  own  limited  capacity  :  "  Si  alibi, 
hie  certe  noduantm  instar  ccecuti'nus  "  (Heidegger). 

3.  If  the  Divine  self-consciousness  is  thus  at  the  same  time  an  absolute 
consciousness  of  the  world,  this  consciousness  displays  not  simply  a  highly 
metaphysical,  but  also  an  exalted  ethical  character ;  from  the  Divine 
Omniscience,  the  Divine  Wisdom  must  never  be  separated.  The  latter  is 
in  a  certain  sense  the  ethicd-practical  side  of  the  former  :  "  Wisdom  is  the 
virtue  of  knowledge  "  (Nitzsch).  It  is  that  perfection  of  God,  by  virtue  of 
-which  He  realises  the  highest  designs  by  the  use  of  the  best  means.  The 
assertion  of  Spinoza  and  Strauss,  that  no  design  at  all  can  be  ascribed  to 
God,  is  connected  with  the  Pan  theistic  non-recognition  of  the  idea  of  God's 
personality.  Certainly  there  does  not  exist  for  the  infinite  understanding 
the  opposition,  not  even  the  great  disparity,  between  means  and  end,  which 
so  frequently  is  a  hindrance  to  us  ;  but  he  who  will  here  exclude  the  whole 
idea  of  design,  denies  in  other  words  that  God  is  a  Spirit  who  thinks  and 
wills.  As  such  He  must  not  only  be  the  All-wise,  but  also  the  Only  Wise 
One,  in  comparison  with  whom  all  human  wisdom  is  as  nothing.  In  truth, 
Holy  Scripture  also  presents  Him  to  us  in  precisely  this  light 9 — a  God  who 
not  only  possesses  in  Himself  wisdom  in  perfection,10  but  also  communi- 


7  Gen.  vi.  6  ;  Isaiah  v.  4 ;  Matt.  xxi.  37.  '  I  Tim.  i.  17 

8  Prov.  xv.  3.  10  Prov.  viii.  22. 


GOD'S  MODE  OF  WORKING.  263 

cates  it  to  others.11  The  Apostle  even  makes  mention  of  a  "  manifold  " 
wisdom,  manifest  for  the  eye  of  angels,  although  for  that  of  man  unsearch- 
able.13 Yet  even  here  below  it  beams  forth  clearly  enough  to  awaken  within 
us  deep  reverence  and  filial  confidence.  We  observe  it  in  the  kingdom  of 
Nature,  as  well  in  that  which  is  greatest  as  in  that  which  is  smallest ; 13  in 
that  of  Providence,  both  in  prosperity  and  adversity ; u  above  all,  in  that 
of  Grace,  both  in  the  person  and  in  the  work  of  the  Lord,  especially  in 
the  time  of  His  coming,15  the  word  of  His  cross,16  and  the  ordering  of  His 
Church  ;17  while  one  day  it  will  shine  forth  unclouded  in  the  kingdom  of 
Glory.18 

4.  Forasmuch  as  the  wisdom  of  God  displays  a  definitely  moral  character, 
it  forms  at  the  same  time  the  transition  to  those  attributes  in  which  the  opera- 
tion of  God's  will  is  more  definitely  manifested.  At  the  head  of  these  there 
meets  us,  first  of  all,  His  Omnipotence,  that  perfection  by  virtue  of  which  God 
is  able  to  do  all  that  He  pleases.  With  the  exception  of  that  which  is  con- 
trary to  His  nature  and  character,  there  exists  for  Him  nothing  of  which 
the  realisation  surpasses  His  power.  He  can  do  all,  not  indeed  that  is 
possible  in  the  abstract,  but  that  is  possible  for  Him.  "  For  God,"  says 
Tertullian,  "  to  will  is  to  be  able,  and  not  to  will  is  not  to  be  able."  Dei  posse 
vdle  cst,  et  non  posse  noUe.  The  acknowledgment  of  this  truth,  both  called 
forth  and  legitimated  by  die  Christian  conception  of  God,  was  already  heard 
even  from  Gentile  lips  ;  but  was  more  loudly  proclaimed  in  Israel,19  and 
constantly  brought  into  prominence  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament.20 
Naturally  so,  where  this  omnipotence  shines  forth  in  so  bright  a  succession 
of  facts.  Here  must  be  particularly  mentioned  the  Creation  of  all  things  out 
of  nothing,  and  the  whole  domain  of  Miracles,  especially  also  the  appearing  of 
Christ,  and  the  spiritual  creation  wrought  by  Him.  On  the  ground  of  the 
different  ways  in  which  this  power  manifests  itself — now  in  a  more  ordinary, 
now  in  an  entirely  extraordinary  manner — the  distinction  has  often  been 
made  between  a  mediate  and  an  immediate,  an  ordaining  and  ordained,  an 
absolute  and  a  relative  activity  of  the  Omnipotence  of  God — a  distinction 
which,  rightly  understood,  is  allowable  and  useful,  provided  only  it  be  never 
forgotten  that  this  activity  presents  itself  under  a  very  different  aspect  from 
the  human  standpoint,  than  it  does  from  the  Divine.21  Belief  in  this  Omni- 
potence affords,  on  the  one  hand,  occasion  for  deep  adoration ;  **  on  the 
other,  a  firm  support  for  quiet  confidence.28 

11  James  i.  5. 

12  Ephes.  iii.  10  ,  Rom.  xi.  33. 

13  Ps.  civ.  24. 

14  As  exemplified  in  the  lives  ol  Job,  Joseph,  David,  and  others. 

15  Gal.  iv.  4. 

16  6  X^YOJ  6  TOU  ffravpoC,  I  Cot.  i.  1 8. 

17  I  Cor.  xiv.  33. 

18  i  Cor.  xiii.  12. 

19  Ps.  xxxiii.  9  ;  Isa.  xl.  12. 

20  John  x.  29?  Rom.  iv.  17  ;  Ephe-.  iii.  20. 

21  On  the  connection  between  the  recognition  of  God's  omnipotence  and  the  admission 
of  the  idea  of  miracles,  compare  §  xxxii.,  Pt.  i.,  p.  128. 

22  Rev.  iv.  9— u. 

23  Rom.  viii.  31. 


264  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

5.  As  the  operation  of  God's  will  is  thus  an  almighty  one,  so  does  it  not 
less  display  the  character  of  unlimited  Sovereignty — an  attribute  again  most 
closely  connected  with  the  foregoing.  By  nothing  without  Him  is  God 
ever  hindered  from  doing  what  He  pleases.24  This,  too,  follows  actually  from 
the  recognition  of  God  as  the  infinitely  perfect  Being,  and  is  frequently 
heard  from  the  lips  even  of  profane  antiquity,  and  still  more  clearly  from  the 
sacred  writers.25  Even  the  Lord  speaks  of  a  good-pleasure  of  the  Father, 
which  is  accomplished  on  earth  ;26  and  although  to  a  certain  extent  this 
expression  may  display  an  anthropological  character,  it  soon  becomes  ap- 
parent that  it  proclaims  a  truth  equally  incontestable  as  it  is  glorious. 
That  truth  is  this,  that  God  in  reality  does  all  that  He  wills,  and  only 
that  which  He  wills.  No  doubt  this  truth  is  frequently  exaggerated,  and 
we  would  by  no  means  dare  to  assert  that  God's  absolute  sovereignty  is  that 
particular  side  of  the  conception  of  God  which  is  brought  most  distinctly  into 
the  foreground  in  the  New  Testament.  It  may  even  be  deplored  that  the 
doctrine  of  God's  Sovereignty  has  been  frequently  presented,  especially  by 
the  hot-headed  champions  of  Predestination,  in  so  irrational  a  manner  as 
to  awaken  more  opposition  than  admiration.  But,  however  much  this 
exaggeration  is  to  be  condemned,  still  less  is  the  complete  disavowal  of 
this  truth  to  be  justified  in  the  form  it  has  taken,  earlier  with  the  Socinians, 
and  later  with  all  those  according  to  whose  presentment  God  might 
equally  well  not  have  willed  that  which  He  willed,  or  have  willed  it  in  a 
manner  precisely  the  opposite.  According  to  this  standpoint,  that  which 
God  does  would  be  based,  not  upon  His  nature,  but  only  upon  His  will, 
as  conceived  of  apart  from  that  nature  ;  and  what  is  called  freedom  at  last 
becomes  only  boundless  caprice.  No,  for  God  freedom  and  necessity  are 
not  opposed  to  each  other,  but  are  rather  resolved  into  perfect  harmony. 
God  does  all  that  He  will,  because  He — by  virtue  of  His  perfectly  reasonable 
and  moral  nature — cannot  but  will  precisely  that  which  He  does,  and  in 
that  way  in  which  He  does  it.  The  inner  aversion  of  many  to  this  truth 
— which,  however,  cannot  be  denied — ordinarily  arises  from  the  fact  that 
God's  sovereignty  is  too  much  separated  from  His  other  perfections,  by 
which  nevertheless  it  is  wholly  determined  in  its  manifestation.  God's 
sovereignty  is  not  that  of  a  capricious  despot,  but  that  of  the  Only  Wise, 
Gracious,  Righteous,  Holy  One.  And  thus  regarded,  this  attribute  is  so 
pre-eminently  worthy  of  God,  that  one  does  not  comprehend  how  He  could 
be  God,  if  it  could  be  seriously  denied.  The  history  of  whole  nations  and 
of  individuals  presents  not  a  little  which,  without  the  belief  in  this  unlimited 
sovereignty,  must  be  regarded  as  in  principle  inexplicable.  Sometimes 
there  even  remains  to  us  no  other  course  than  to  correct  the  proud  man 
who  will  find  fault  with  God's  free  action,  by  an  appeal  to  this  sovereign 
right.27  For  faith,  its  humble  acknowledgment  presents  no  danger,  provided 
we  never  overlook  the  boundary  line  which  separates  good-pleasure  from 
caprice. 

6.  If  it  were  still  doubtful  whether  God's  sovereignty  may  be  spoken  of  as 
a  moral  attribute,  this  doubt  vanishes  so  soon  as  we  fix  the  eye  more  par- 

24  Ps.  cxv.  3.  M  Luke  x.  21 ;  xii.  32. 

B  Isaiah  xlv.  7;  Dan.  iv.  35;  Ephes.  i.  II.  w  Rom.  ix.  20. 


GOD'S  MODE  OF  WORKING.  265 

ticularly  upon  the  Holiness  of  God.  That  this  attribute  also  must  be 
acknowledged  as  belonging  to  the  Divine  will,  is  in  a  general  way  certainly 
denied  by  no  one.  Yet  it  is  far  from  ea$y  properly  to  describe  this  holi- 
ness, as  is  already  apparent  from  the  great  number  and  diversity  of  the 
dogmatic  definitions  thereof.  The  cause  of  this  difficulty  lies  in  the  fact 
that  we  are  not  only  finite,  but  sinful  beings,  whose  eye  can  by  no  means 
endure  the  splendour  of  this  light.  "  Where  is  the  man  who  can  tell  me 
precisely  what  holiness  is?  let  him  come  and  call  me  to  him,"  says  Claus 
Harms.  No  one  of  the  Divine  attributes  was  accordingly  less  understood  and 
prized  in  the  heathen  world.  Under  Monotheism — the  fruit  of  a  more 
perfect  revelation — did  a  pure  conception  of  holiness  first  become  pos- 
sible. The  word  by  which  it  is  indicated  in  Holy  Scripture  (nn,>  tf-yw) 

denotes  originally  that  which  is  separated,  that  which  was  designed  to  be 
used  in  the  service  of  God,  and  was  thereby  consecrated  to  God.  But 
this  distinction  itself,  without  anything  further,  serves  already  to  show  that 
the  profane  was  conceived  of  also  as  unclean,  and  only  that  which  has  been 
separated  therefrom  is  conceived  of  as  freed  from  this  defilement ;  first  as 
in  Mosaism  the  ideas  of  Levitical  and  moral  purity  constantly  flow  into  one. 
In  many  places,  however,  the  reference  of  these  words  is  undoubtedly  to 
moral  purity,28  as,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  the  highest  conceivable  per- 
fection can  be  nothing  else  than  a  purely  moral  and  spiritual  one.  Holiness 
is  that  attribute  of  the  Supreme  Being,  by  virtue  of  which  He,  in  separation 
from  all  moral  imperfection,  loves  only  that  which  is  right  and  good,  and 
cannot  possibly  have  fellowship  with  that  which  is  opposed  thereco.29  It  is 
thus  no  mere  negative  idea,  but  a  very  positive  one,  with  which  we  here  have 
to  do  ;  an  indication  of  an  absolute  perfection  so  great,  that  sinning  is  for 
God  something  absolutely  impossible,30  and  equally  so  the  toleration  of  sin 
with  indifference.31  Less  accurately  is  this  holiness  described  as  God's 
perfect  agreement  with  the  law  of  morality  (Kant).  Nay,  rather,  the  moral 
law  itself  does  not  exist  outside  of  God,  much  less  in  contradistinction  from 
Him,  but  has  its  basis  in  His  own  nature.  God  is  Himself  the  highest  law, 
and  by  virtue  of  His  holiness  there  exists  perfect  harmony  between  the  law 
and  the  lawgiver.  As  the  Holy  One,  God  cannot  but  love  Himself  above  all, 
because  even  He  knows  nothing  more  perfect,  and  finds  Himself  separated 
as  by  a  natural  chasm  from  all  that  is  impure  and  sinful.  If,  further,  it 
follows  from  the  nature  of  the  case  that  this  holiness  especially  occupied 
the  foreground  under  the  old  dispensation,  yet  it  is  far  from  being  true  that 
the  revelation  thereof  in  the  New  Testament  commonly  recedes  before  the 
revelation  of  God's  love.  Jesus  Himself  calls  the  Father  perfect,32  alone 
good,83  holy.84  All  His  Apostles  represent  holiness  as  the  will  of  God,  and 
the  final  aim  of  redemption  in  Christ.  By  reason  of  this  His  perfection  they 

K  Levit.  xix.  2,  compare  I  Pet.  i.  15 — 17 ;  Isaiah  vi.  3,  compare  ver.  5. 
»  Hab.  i.  12. 

30  direipacrTOS  KOLKUV,  James  i.  13. 

31  Ps.  v.  4,  5. 
K  Matt.  v.  48. 
33  Matt.  xix.  17. 
M  John  xvii.  1 1. 


266  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

speak  of  God  as  a  consuming  fire  for  the  sinner  i35  a  light  wherein  is  no 
darkness  at  all.36  Most  illustriously  do  we  see  this  attribute  manifested 
and  glorified  in  the  faultlessly  holy  Christ.37  Its  recognition  calls  forth 
humility  and  good  courage,  since  it  presents  to  us  in  God  the  highest  Ideal 
cf  our  moral  life. 

7.  Almost  in  the  same  breath  with  the  Holiness  of  God  do  we  usually  speak 
of  the  Righteousness  which  necessarily  flows  therefrom.  Difficult  as  this  holi- 
ness is  to  conceive  of,  this  righteousness  may  be  described  with  comparative 
ease.  A  notion  and  sense  of  justice  is  peculiar  to  every  man  in  a  greater 
or  less  degree ;  according  to  the  conception  of  the  ancients,  justice  was  at 
once  the  sum  total  of  virtue,  and  righteousness  the  highest  virtue  in  the 
Godhead.  "  Justitia  in  sc  virtutem  complcctitur  omnem."  Yet  all  justice 
here  below  is  only  the  faint  reflection  of  that  original,  highest,  eternal 
righteousness,  which  shines  forth  in  the  heavens.  When  we  ascribe  right- 
eousness to  God,  we  confess  in  other  words  that  all  injustice  is  in  diametrical 
opposition  to  tne  perfect  character  of  the  Divine  nature,  so  that  with  Him  is 
found  no  respect  of  persons,1*8  yea,  all  want  of  equity  in  His  government  of  the 
world  is  something  absolutely  impossible.  Of  such  a  trait  of  character,  which 
is  found  to  a  certain  extent  in  every  right-natured  man,  it  can  be  least  of  all 
doubted  that  it  belongs  with  other  perfections  to  the  nature  o  the  Father  of 
spirits.  Both  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  and  in  those  of  the  New, 
it  is  everywhere  emphatically  proclaimed.39  Not  unsuitably  is  this  righteous- 
ness divided  into  the  Righteousness  which  God  displays  as  Lawgiver,  and 
that  which  He  displays  as  Judge. — The  former  is  manifested  in  the  fact 
that  He  appoints  no  other  laws  than  those  which  are  equitable  in  them- 
selves, and  at  the  same  time  practicable  for  us ;  a  fact  which  we  could 
not  but  expect  from  Him,  and  which  also  has  been  confirmed  by  the 
spiritual  experience  of  all  ages.40  That  the  Divine  right  to  give  laws,  and 
precisely  such  laws,  can  be  founded  in  nothing  else  than  His  nature  and 
His  wholly  unique  relation  to  the  creature,  scarcely  needs  to  be  recalled  to 
the  mind  of  the  reader,  after  what  has  been  said. — As  Judge,  God  is  the 
Righteous  One,  because  He  has  most  intimately  connected  obedience  and 
happiness,  disobedience  and  misery.  From  the  nature  of  the  case  one 
must  here  speak  of  a  retributive  justice — as  well  in  rewarding  as  in  punish- 
ing— which  is  placed  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  by  a  number  of  testi- 
monies of  Holy  Scripture,  of  history,  and  of  daily  experience.  Even 
where  we  must  confess  that  the  good  is  rewarded  of  grace,41  it  is  not  to  be 
denied  that  the  rewarding  is  a  reality,  and  that  on  the  other  side  the 
history  of  the  world  bears  the  character  of  an  unceasing  judgment  of  the 
world.  Kven  the  Heathen  have  been  compelled  to  acknowledge  the 
existence  of  an  avenging  Nemesis ;  and  the  Christian  sees  the  righteous- 


15  Heb.  xii.  29. 

K  I  John  i.  5. 

**  John  viii.  46 ;  xvii.  4. 

38  Rom.  ii.  II. 

"  Gen.  xviii.  25  ;  Ps.  xi.  7 ;  John  xvii.  25  ;  Heb.  vi.  IO. 

40  Ps.  xix.  7 — 10. 

41  Heidelberg  Catechism,  Ans.  Ixiii. 


GOD'S  MODE  OF  WORKING.  267 

ness  of  God  even  in  the  revelation  of  His  highest  grace  in  Christ.41 
Only  we  have  here  especially  to  be  on  our  guard  against  all  Anthropopa- 
thism,  and  must  understand  that  which  Scripture  speaks  of  God's  holy 
wrath  against  the  sin  of  the  world  in  the  sense  that,  precisely  because  He 
is  God,  He  presents  in  word  and  deed  the  strongest  possible  negation 
to  the  evil  which  He  cannnot  tolerate.  Without  such  wrath  the  very 
love  of  God  would  lose  its  highest  value  :  not  without  reason  has  this 
wrath  been  termed  "  the  extreme  burning  point  of  the  flame  of  love." 
What  is  the  love  which  can  never  be  angry?  and  what  becomes  of  the 
Gospel  if  Christ  has  not  redeemed  us  from  that  winch  we  had  othenvise  to 
dread?43  On  the  principle,  the  idea,  and  the  aim  of  punishment,  it  will  be 
more  in  place  to  speak  hereafter,  in  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  sin. 
Here  only  the  additional  remark  that  the  frequently  repeated  assertion,  to 
the  effect  that  the  righteousness  of  God  is  much  more  held  in  honour  in 
the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  than  in  those  of  the  New,  is  to  say 
the  least  one-sided.  The  triumph  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  is,  not  simply 
that  of  the  highest  grace,  but  also  that  of  the  great  judgment.44  The 
difference  is  only  this,  that  according  to  the  ordinary  conception  of  the 
Old  Testament  the  retribution  takes  place  more  on  this  side  the  grave ; 
according  to  the  conception  of  the  New  Testament,  more  on  the  other 
side.  The  argument  against  the  righteousness  of  God,  derived  under  the 
former  from  the  prosperity  of  the  ungodly,45  no  longer  exists,  since  under  the 
latter  life  and  immortality  (incorruptibility)  has  been  brought  to  light.  The 
final  answer,  moreover,  to  each  objection  which  so  frequently  renders 
belief  in  the  righteousness  of  God  difficult,  will  be  received  only  beyond 
the  grave  ;  but  even  here  the  reverent  acknowledgment  of  this  righteousness 
must  redound  to  His  glory  and  to  the  work  of  our  own  perfection.46 

8.  The  same  revelation  which  testifies  of  God's  righteousness,  places 
also  His  Kindness  in  brighter  lustre  before  our  eye.  In  manifold  ways  this 
was  also  recognised  by  the  heathen  world ;  but  only  with  the  light  of 
Saving  Revelation  was  its  full  value  understood,  because  He  who  displays 
it  is  the  spotlessly  Holy  One.  In  harmony  with  Holy  Scripture  we  speak 
of  God  as  kind47  (xp^rij,  nan  ni£?) ;  because  He  wills  the  happiness 
of  His  creatures,  and  to  this  end  confers  upon  them  abundantly  all 
things  which  they  are  capable  of  receiving,  in  themselves,  or  in  connec- 
tion with  others.  This  Kindness  bears  different  names,  according  as  it 
displays  itself  towards  different  kinds  of  objects.  As  shown  to  the  unfor- 
tunate and  helpless  it  is  called  Mercy;48  shown  to  guilty  ones,  whose 
punishment  is  still  delayed,  it  is  called  Longsuffering  ;49  glorified  in  trans- 
gressors, whose  sentence  is  freely  remitted,  it  is  called  Grace.80  In  all 

42  Rom.  iii.  25,  26. 

43  I  Thess.  i.  10. 

44  Rev.  xv.  3,  4. 

45  Ps.  xxxvii. ;  Mai.  iii. 

46  Ezek.  xviii.  25;  Micah  vi.  8  ;  Rom.  ii.  6— II. 

47  Ps.  xxxvi.  5 ;  Luke  vi.  35. 

48  ?Xeos,  misericoniia,  Luke  i.  78. 

49  pa.Kpo0vtJ.ia,  di'ox'7,  Luke  xiii.  6—9. 
60  xfyt-s,  Ephes.  i.  7. 


268  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

three  is  manifested  God's  Compassion  and  Love  towards  Men,  which 
Scripture  extols  with  so  great  warmth.61  Far,  indeed,  from  this  conflicting 
with  God's  righteousness  as,  following  in  the  footsteps  of  the  ancient  Gnos- 
ticism, so  many  a  one  asserts,  it  on  the  contrary  harmonises  most  gloriously 
therewith,52  and  together  with  this  righteousness,  shines  forth  in  the  same 
cross  of  reconciliation.63  Although  this  attribute  of  God  was  already  made 
known  even  under  the  old  dispensation,54  the  Gospel  of  God's  grace 
towards  sinners  merits  to  be  called  its  highest  revelation.  Yet  in  the 
wider  sense  also  there  is  no  single  kind  of  creatures  to  which  God's 
kindness  does  not  extend.55  From  the  nature  of  the  case  the  recognition 
thereof  affords  us  renewed  cause  for  glorifying  Him,56  a  stimulus  to  repent- 
ance, 67  and  an  example  for  imitation.58 

9.  Have  we,  in  what  has  been  said,  reviewed  all  the  attributes  of  God 
revealed  to  us  ?  Not  so  long  as  we  have  not  learnt  to  know  Him,  finally, 
as  the  True  and  Faithful  One.  The  one  idea  may  thus  be  distinguished 
from  the  other,  that  we  speak  of  God  in  Himself  as  true,  and  in  all  His 
words  as  faithful.  In  asserting  the  former,  we  deny  that  in  Him  there  is 
any  difference  between  appearance  and  reality ;  His  power  is  true  Omnipo- 
tence, His  holiness  essential  Holiness.  In  expressing  the  latter,  we  main- 
tain that  not  only  His  nature,  but  also  the  feeling  He  cherishes  towards 
us,  remains  always  absolutely  self-consistent,  so  that  we  can  unreservedly 
count  upon  all  that  He  declares,  promises,  or  threatens.59  Every  reason 
exists  for  doing  so ;  because  He  is  the  Most  High,  the  morally  perfect 
One,  for  whom  none  of  those  reasons  can  exist,  which  -so  frequently  lead 
us  to  fail  in  our  promises  or  threatenings.  He  is  accordingly  also  intro- 
duced as  swearing  by  Himself,60  and  bears  the  name  of  a  God  who  cannot 
lie.61  If  we  read— in  apparent  contradiction  with  this — that  He  repents  of 
anything,62  this  is  not  to  be  conceived  of  in  any  other  sense  than  one 
worthy  of  God,  as  indicating  the  in  tensest  grief  of  love  j63  while  passages 
of  Scripture  like  i  Kings  xxii.  20;  2  Thess.  ii.  10 — 12,  have  reference  to 
particular  judgments,  before  announced,  and  thus  least  of  all  prove  any- 
thing against  God's  truth  and  faithfulness.  The  whole  history  of  Israel 
and  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  upon  earth,  as  well  as  our  daily  experience, 
bears  constant  witness  to  this  faithfulness.64  Its  recognition  is  the  tacit 
condition  of  all  belief  in  revelation,  and  at  the  same  time  an  inexhaustible 
source  of  comfort  and  strength. a 

10.  It  must  yet  be  remarked,  in  regard  to  all  these  attributes  of  God, 
that  they  are  inseparably  connected  in  their  operation  and  manifestation, 
and  are  limited  the  one  by  the  other.  God's  omnipotence,  for  example, 
does  not  manifest  itself  otherwise  than  His  wisdom  allows ;  His  kindness 
cannot  cease  to  be  holy  and  righteous.  Nothing,  therefore,  must  be 

M  Ps.  cxvi.  5  ;  Titus  iii.  4.  M  Luke  vi.  36. 

a  Matt.  v.  45  ;  Acts.  x.  34,  35.  "  Compare  Num.  xxiii.  19;  Isa.  xlvi.  IO. 

85  Rom.  iii.  24 — 26.  w  Ezek.  xxxiii.  II. 

54  Exod.  xxxiv.  6,  7.  "  Titus  i.  2. 

*  Ps.  cxlv.  9.  «  Gen.  vi.  6. 

46  Ps.  xxxvi.  7.  •*  i  Sam.  xv.  29. 

47  Rom.  ii.  4.  «4  Ps.  cxix.  89 — 91  ;  Isa.  liv.  IO. 

w  I  Cor.  i.  9 ;  2  Tim.  ii.  13. 


HARMONY.      GOD   IS   LOVE.  269 

expected  of  God  on  the  ground  of  one  attribute,  which — being  granted — 
would  necessarily  lead  to  the  obscuring  of  some  other  of  His  perfections. 
All  His  perfections  form  one  inseparable  whole.  "  Certe  vita  #,  sapientia 

fs,  veritas  es,  bonitas  es,  czternitas  es,  et  omne  verum  bmum  es Viln^  ct 

sapientia,  et  reliqua,  non  sunt paries  Tui,  sed  omnia  sunt  unum,  et  unumquodque 
bonum  est  totum,  quod  est,  et  quod  sunt  reliqua  omnia"  (Anselm).  "  Certainly 
Thou  art  life,  art  wisdom,  truth,  goodness,  eternity,  and  every  true  good. 
....  Life,  and  wisdom,  and  the  other  perfections,  are  not  parts  of  Thy- 
self, but  all  are  one,  and  each  good  is  all  that  it  is  itself,  and  that  all 
the  others  are." 

Compare,  on  the  sctentia  media,  G.  VOETIUS,  Select.  Dtsp.  i.  (1648),  pp.  254 — 257  j 
DAEHNE,  De praesc.  divtnce  cum  libert.  hum.  concordid.  (1830).  On  God's  longsuffering, 
the  treatise  of  PLUTARCH,  De  serd  Numinis  vindictd.  On  God's  punitive  righteousness, 
the  treatise  of  v.  d.  WIJNPERSSE  (Hague  Soc.,  1798),  and  LACTANTIUS,  De  Ird  Dei ;  as 
also  a  treatise  of  HERDER,  (Sdmmtl.  Werke  zur.  Lift.  u.  K.  xix).  The  treatise  of 
DIESTEL,  On  the  holiness  and  righteousness  of  God,  in  the  Jahrb.  fur  deutsche  Theol. 
(1859)  i.,  (1860)  ii.  On  the  signification  of  the  word  Grace,  a  paper  by  N.  BEETS, 
Jaarb.  W.  Th.  (1853),  p.  742,  sqq. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Is  it  possible,  in  the  doctrine  of  attributes,  to  separate  from  each  other,  by  a  sharp  line 
of  demarcation,  the  activity  of  God's  understanding  and  of  His  will  ? — Explanation  and 
defence  of  the  idea  of  Foreknowledge. — Are  the  Divine  Omnipotence  and  Sovereignty 
absolutely  unlimited  ? — Explanation  of  Rom.  ix.  14 — 23. — Whence  is  it,  that  the  heathen 
world  has  not  been  able  to  rise  to  the  conception  of  God's  holiness  ? — The  connection 
between  God's  righteousness  and  His  compassion  and  grace. — Criticism  of  the  principal 
objections,  which  have  been  brought  from  a  different  standpoint  against  the  attributes  here 
treated  of. 


SECTION   L. — HARMONY.      GOD  IS  LOVE. 

The  higher  unity  of  all  the  different  attributes  of  God  is  given  in 
the  idea  of  holy  Love,  which  is  first  manifest  in  its  full  lustre  in  the 
Gospel.  The  saying  of  the  Apostle,  "God  is  Love,"1  is  therefore  the 
best  compendium  of  the  Christian  idea  of  God ;  and  at  the  same  time 
the  appropriate  basis  on  which,  in  the  further  development  of  this 
idea,  carefully  to  raise  up  our  superstructure. 

i.  If  the  contemplation  of  the  particular  attributes  justly  awakened 
admiration,  so  much  the  more  natural  becomes  the  question  as  to  the 
proper  essence  of  Him  who  unites  them  all  in  Himself.  For  that  here  a 
higher  unity  must  exist,  we  should  already  tacitly  assume,  supposing  that 
nothing  of  this  kind  had  been  made  known  to  us  ;  perfection  without 
harmony  is  inconceivable.  However  gloriously  the  colours  of  the  rainbow 
shine,  they  can  only  originate  from  the  refraction  of  the  one  colourless  light. 

1  i  John  iv.  8,  1 6. 


2/O  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

Can  we  speak  in  regard  to  the  Divine  nature,  as  well  as  the  human,  of  a 
'•  bond  of  perfectness  "  ?  The  Gospel  renders  an  affirmative  answer  to 
this  question,  by  pointing  to  Love  as  the  proper  centre  of  God's  nature. 

2.  "  God  is  love."     It  must  not  be  passed  over  unobserved,  that  this 
great   saying  is  met  with  in  the  utterances  of  an  Apostle  who  certainly 
penetrated  more  deeply  than  any  other  into  the  spirit  of  his  Master.    Even 
the  form  of  the  expression  shows  that  it  implies  more  than  that  God  may 
be  spoken  of  as  loving  and  kind.     Kindness  and  love  are  certainly  not 
convertible  terms,  although  the  expressions  are  constantly  interchanged. 
Kindness   may   be  shown  to  irrational  creatures — animals,  for  instance  ; 
love  can  be  shown  only  to  rational  beings.     "  Kindness  has  reference  to 
well-being  in  general     love,   on  the  other  hand,  has   a  higher  aim,  the 
development  of  the  rational  creature  to  its  highest  good.     We  may  be  kind 
even  to  the  man  whom  we  heartily  despise — love  to  such  an  one  is  possible 
only  in  so  far  as  we  still  recognise  and  respect  human  nature  in  him  " 
(Bruch).     In   a   word,  kindness  is  one  of  God's  attributes;  but  love  is, 
properly  speaking,  the  nature  of  Him  who  unites  all  these  attributes  in 
Himself;  He  is  love  Himself.     All  His  properties  must  be  regarded  as  the 
attributes  of  love,  as  adjectives  of  this  peerless  substantive.     God's  power 
is  thus  the  power  of  love  ;  God  s  knowledge  the  intelligence  of  love  ;  God's 
righteousness  the  righteousness  of  love,  and  in  its  manifestation  simply  a 
means  to  attain  to  the  exalted  aim  His  love  has  in  view.     "  God  is  Himself 
love,  and  His  nature  is  nothing  but  pure  love ;  so  that  if  any  one  would 
paint  and  set  forth  God,  he  must  draw  such  an  image  as  should  be  pure 
love,  representing  the  Divine  nature  as  the  furnace  and  burning  point,  of 
that  love  which  fills  heaven  and  earth  ;>  (Luther). 

3.  That  such  a  view  may  be  said  to  be  wholly  in  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel, 
and  moreover  most  worthy  of  God,  is  well-nigh  self-evident.     In  the  former 
the  love  of  God,  more  than  anything  else,  is  brought  into  the  foreground  ; 
and  as  the  Lord  ordinarily  speaks  of  Him  by  preference  as  "  the  Father," 
so  He  calls  Him  even  by  the  appellation  "  holy  Father," z  and  manifests 
thereby  that  in  His  conception  of  God  the  notions  of  love  and  holiness  are 
by  no  means  opposed.     While  the  highest  perfection  of  a  personal  bdng 
can  be  no  other  than  a  moral  perfection,  it  is  impossible  we  should  conceive 
of  a  higher  moral  perfection,  than  that  which  manifests  itself  in  love.     No 
other  than  this  can  be  the  central  point  of  the  inner  life  of  the  Godhead : 
the  highest  in  God  is  His  heart ;  the  life  of  that  heart  is  love.     Precisely 
on  this  account  is  He  the  absolutely  perfect  One,  but  at  the  same  time  also 
the  indescribably  blessed  One.8     Ex  suo  amore,  says  Augustine,  quisque 
vivit. — The  great  proof  that,  even  with  God,   it  neither  is  nor  can  be 
otherwise,  consists  in  the  fact  that  in  this  love  alone  lies  the  right  key  to 
explain  all  that  He  has  done  and  is  doing.     What  can  have  moved  Him 
to  have  called  into  existence  anything  outside  Himself?  to  reveal   Him- 
self? to  give  His  Son  to  sinners?     The  answer  is  ever  again  one  and 
the  same.      Indeed,   when  giving  this   answer,  we   need   not  deny  that 
many  a  fact,  regarded  in  the  light  of  God's  love,  appears  inexplicable. 
But  that  is  a  consequence  merely  of  our  limited  understanding,  which 

*  John  xvii.  II.  3  Acts  xx.  35. 


HARMONY.     GOD  IS  LOVE.  271 

can  only  in  a  very  imperfect  manner  penetrate  the  connection  between 
God's  love  and  His  righteousness.  God  is  and  :emains  holy  love  accord- 
ing to  the  united  testimony  of  Nature,  History,  and  Scripture,  even  where 
His  path  is  for  us  veiled  in  darkness.  The  single  word,  "God  first 
loved  us,"  is  at  once  the  sum  total  of  the  doctrine  of  salvation,  the 
basis  of  the  doctrine  of  life,  and  the  bond  which  unites  the  two.4  No 
wonder  that  it  has  already  called  forth  from  countless  hearts  a  tone  of 
reverent  adoration.  Prius  dilcxit  nos  Tantus,  tantum  gratis  tantittos  et  tales. 
"He  first  loved  us,  who  was  so  great,  loved  us  freely,  when  we  were  so 
little,  and  such  as  we  were." 6  But  no  wonder,  above  all,  that  precisely  this 
perfection  of  God  is  so  emphatically  presented  to  man — who  is  related  to 
God — for  imitation.6 

4.  The  proper  connection  of  the  sacred  utterances,  "  God  is  Spirit,  God 
is  Light,  God  is  Love,"  can,  after  what  has  been  said,  be  no  longer  obscure. 
To  the  question,    What  is  God  ?  the  answer  is,   "  God  is  Spirit ; "  His 
nature  must  be  regarded  as  purely  spiritual.      But  to  the  question,  "  Who 
is  God  ?  in  regard  to  His  inner  being,  the  ideas  of  light  and  love  have 
their  application.7     The  infinite  Spirit  is  equally  the  one  and  the  other — 
spotless  light,  because  He  is  holy  love.      This  conception  of  God,  already 
obscurely   apprehended  by  illustrious  Heathen,  and   indicated  by    some 
in  Israel,  was  first  expressed  in  its  full  majesty  in  the  Gospel  of  the  New 
Covenant.     And  naturally,  the  purest  conception  of  God  could  only  be  a 
fruit  of  the  contemplation  of  the  highest  revelation  of  God.     Precisely  in 
this  conception  of  God   lies,  moreover,   the   secret  of  the  enlightening, 
creating,  redeeming  power  of  Christianity.     "  If  Satan  could  believe  that, 
he  would  be  saved."     (Chrysostom.) 

5.  For  Dogmatics  the  recognition  of  this  truth  is  of  preponderating 
importance,  because  it  affords  at  the  same  time  a  satisfactory  starting-point 
for  further  theological  investigation.     Yet  other  depths  of  God's  nature  are 
revealed  to  us  in  the  Gospel  than  the  attributes  thus  far  under  contempla- 
tion.     It  cannot  but  be  that  these  depths  should  turn  us  dizzy,  but  at  the 
same  time  they  compel  us  to  seek  a  light  which  dispels  for  our  eyes  at  least 
a  single  cloud.     Let  us  try  how  far  it  is  possible,  proceeding  from  God's  love, 
to  ascend  gradually  to  the  highest  revealed  mystery  of  the  Divine  nature. 

Comp.  J.  H.  SCHOLTEN,  Disq.  de  Dei  amore,  etc.  (1836)  ;  B.  DOORENBOS,  De  amore, 
omnem omnino Dei  virtutem  continente  (1838);  M.  A.  JENTINK,  Brievenvan  Bato en  Gruno 
over  Gods  heiligh.  en  HefJe  (1841)  ;  L.  SCHOESERLEIN,  Die  Grundlehre  lies  Heils,  entwic- 
kelt  aus  dem  Princip.  der  Liebe  (1848);  E.  SARTORIUS,  Lehre  von  der  hfiligen  Lube  (1856); 
the  dogmatic  masterpieces  of  NITZSCH,  THOMASIUS,  LIEBNER  ;  also  the  glorious  dis- 
course of  ADOLPHE  MONOD,  Dieu  esl  Amour  (2nd  Rec.,  1857,  p.  423.) 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

To  what  extent  is  the  doctrine  of  Love,  as  the  highest  characteristic  of  God,  met  with 
even  outside  of  Christianity  ?— Further  elucidation  of  I  John  iv.  8,  16,  19. — Is  it  possible 
for  us,  in  the  presentation  of  God's  attributes,  entirely  to  escape  Dualism? — What 
significance  has  the  knowledge  of  God's  holy  love  for  our  theological  conceptions  and  our 
spiritual  life  ? — Transition  to  the  Christian  doctrine  ol  the  Trinity. 

4  I  John  iv.  19.  "  Matt.  v.  48 ;  Ephes.  v.  I. 

s  Bernard  of  Clairvaux.  '  I  John  i.  5  ;  iv.  8. 


2/2  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 


SECTION   LI. — GOD  AS   FATHER. 

As  the  highest  Love,  God  is  Creator  and  Father  of  all  which 
exists  outside  Him,  but  at  the  same  time  through  Him.  This 
Fatherly  relation  of  God  must,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  the 
more  intimate,  in  proportion  as  its  object  has  a  greater  capacity 
for  receiving  His  favour  and  communion.  No  creature,  however, 
nor  even  the  whole  creation,  can  be  a  perfect  and  wholly  adequate 
object  of  the  Divine  love.  The  Father  has  this  object,  from 
eternity  to  eternity,  in  the  Son  of  His  good-pleasure. 

1.  When  we  speak  of  God  first  as  Love,  and  then  as  Father,  we  do  not 
by  any  means  express  the  same  idea.     The  former  expresses  the  whole 
fulness  of  the  Christian  idea  of  God,  so  far  as  this  is  given  to  us  men ;  the 
latter  is  as  yet  only  the  Alpha  of  new  and  profound  mysteries,  to  which  we 
must  now  be  introduced.     In  accordance  with  the  teaching  of  the  Gospel, 
and  in  common  with  the  whole  Christian   Church,  the  Reformed  Church 
also  confesses  that  God  has  revealed  Himself  as  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost ;  and  it  is  of  this  we  must  now  speak.     It  is  unnecessary  to  expatiate 
on  the  difficulty  of  this  investigation  ;  we  approach  a  rock  for  our  thought, 
rendered  famous  by  countless  shipwrecks.     If,  however,  we  select  as  our 
starting-point  the  incontestable  fact :  God,  the  holy  Love,  we  shall  not  grope 
about  in  the  dark.     For  the  moment  we  occupy  ourselves  exclusively  with 
the  confession  of  the  name  of  Father. 

2.  The  name  of  Father,  which  faith  gives  to  the  Infinite  One,  bears  in 
itself  no  exclusively  Christian  or  Israelitish  character.     Amongst  the  Greeks 
and  Romans  also  it  was  conferred  upon  the  supreme  God,  and  upon  some 
others  with  Him.     An  instance  of  this  we  have  in  the  ZeO  irdrep  of  Homer, 
the   Father  of  gods  and  men,    Diespiter,  Liber  Pater,  etc.      Because  the 
fatherly  relationship  was  the  highest  with  which  men  were  acquainted,  they 
ascribed  this  also  to  the  Infinite  in  regard  to  His  creatures.     So  also  in  the 
Old  Testament  Jahveh  is  termed  the  Father  of  Israel,  because  He  had 
formed  it  by  His  miraculous  power,  and  raised  it  to  a  nation.     Here,  how- 
ever, not  merely  a  natural  relationship,  but  also  a  moral  and  spiritual  one, 
is  indicated  thereby.     As  a  Father,  God  loved  Israel,2  and  is  as  such  ex- 
pressly invoked  by  particular  saints.8     In  a  number  of  places  He  is  called 
the  Father,  as  elsewhere  the  Husband,  of  His  people.     As  such  He  pities 
them  that  fear  Him,4  most  of  all  has  compassion  on  the  unfortunate  and 
tried  ones  ;6  but  demands  in  return  strict  obedience.6    He  then  who  charac- 

1  Deut.  xxxii.  6 ;  Mai.  ii.  10.  4  Psalm  ciii.  13. 

2  Hosea  xi.  I.  *  Ps.  Ixviii.  5  ;  Deut.  viii.  5  ;  Prov.  iii.  12. 
*  Isaiah  Ixiii.  16 ;  bdv.  8.  *  Mai.  i.  6. 


GOD  AS  FATHER.  2/3 

terises  the  presentation  of  God  as  Father  as  something  entirely  new  in  the 
Gospel  of  Jesus,  has  assuredly  read  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament 
with  very  strange  eyes. 

3.  Yet  it  cannot  be  overlooked  that  the  character  of  God  as  Father  is 
first  presented  in  its  full  force  in  the  New  Testament.     The  expression  so 
frequently  repeated,  "  God  the  Father  of  all  men,"  is  never  employed  by 
Jesus  in  this  indefinite  sense ;  on  the  contrary,  He  says  to  the  hostile  Jews 
that  they  are  of  the  father  the  Devil.7      In  the  merely  natural  sense  of 
Creator,  the  name  of  Father  is  not  indeed  employed  by  Jesus ;  He  uses 
this  name  in  regard  to  men  exclusively  in  the  moral  sense,  without  making 
any  distinction  between  Jews  and  Gentiles.     The   fatherly  disposition  of 
God  towards  the  penitent  sinner8  is  the  basis  of  His  whole  Gospel;  and 
the  obligation,  as  His  children,  to  bear  the  image  of  this  Father,  is  incum- 
bent upon  all  who  will  be  in  reality  subjects  of  the  kingdom  of  God.9 

4.  The  significance  of  the  name  of  Father  is  nevertheless  far  from  being 
exhausted  in  that  which  has  been  just  said.     With  manifest  emphasis  is  this 
name  repeated  by  Jesus,  partly  as  indicating  that  which  God  was  for  Christ's 
own  innermost  consciousness,  and  partly  as  descriptive  of  the  point  of  view 
from  which  He  wished  His  disciples  by  preference  to  regard  the  Most 
High.     Therefore  He  places  the  "  Our  Father,"  not  upon  the  lips  of  the 
world,  but  of  His  disciples ;  yet  shows  at  the  same  time  that  He  makes  an 
essential  distinction  between  their  relation  to  God  and   His  own.     It  is 
always  "  my  "  or  "  your,"  never  "  our  "  Father,  when  He  speaks  of  God  to 
His  disciples.     On  this  account  the  Apostles  also  give  to  God  the  distinct 
title  of  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ; 10  but  at  the  same  time  men- 
tion as  the  most  glorious  privilege  of  believers  that  they,  in  His  communion, 
are  able  to  address  the  Invisible  God  as  Father.11 

5.  So,  by  the  light  of  Holy  Scripture,  the  deep  sense  of  the  name  of 
Father  begins  to  reveal  itself  before  our  eyes.     As  Creator  of  all  things, 
God  stands  in  a  natural  relationship  to  every  order  of  beings  (varpid)  in 
heaven  and  on  earth,  which  after  Him  is  named ;  above  all  of  man,  who  is 
created  after  His  image.12     This  relation  is  differently  modified,  however, 
according  to  the  differing  nature  and  capacity  of  its  countless  objects.     God 
is  Father  of  the  (heavenly)  luminaries  ; 13  but  also  of  spirits.14     To  the  last- 
named  alone  is  it,  however,  possible  for  Him  to  stand  in  a  moral  and  spiritual 
relationship.     The  world  of  men  is  on  this  account,  with  all  its  sinfulness, 
the  object  of  His  infinite  love  ;15  and  they  participate  therein,  above  all,  who 
believe  in  and  love  the  Son  of  His  good-pleasure.16    To  this  Son,  as  to  no 
other  being,  God  as  Father  stands  in  a  metaphysical  relation  of  nature  ;  in 
other  words,  in  Himself  and  of  His  own  nature  the  absolute  Personality 
distinguishes  another  I,  whom  He  loves  as  Himself. 

6.  However   surprising  this  last  representation  may   seem — of  which, 
without  a  special  revelation,  we  should  know  nothing — we  cannot  hesitate 

7  John  viii.  44.  12  Ephes.  iii.  15  ;  Acts  xvii.  28, 

8  Luke  xv.  1 7,  sqq.  "  James  i.  1 7. 

8  Matt.  v.  9,  44 — 48.  "  Num.  xvi.  22  ;  Heb.  xii.  9. 

10  Ephes.  i.  17  ;  I  Cor.  viii.  6  ;  I  Pet.  i.  3.  '*  John  iii.  16. 

"  Rom.  viii.  15  ;  I  Pet.  i.  17.  ls  John  xvi.  27. 

T 


2/4  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

to  call  it,  in  connection  with  the  thought  of  God's  Love  (§  1.),  in  the  highest 
sense  reasonable  and  worthy  of  God.  For,  assuredly,  love  requires  for  its 
existence  an  object ;  and  the  adequate  object  of  the  highest  love  cannot 
but  be  perfect  as  this  love  itself,  and  thus  must  also  be  infinite.  But  the 
creation,  existing  outside  God,  especially  such  as  it  has  now  become  under 
the  influence  of  sin,  is  neither  perfect  nor  infinite.17  If  we  are  not  to  assume 
the  eternal  existence  of  Matter,  we  must  believe  in  a  beginning  of  all  things. 
But  has  then  the  Eternal  had  no  adequate  object  for  His  love  before 
the  beginning  of  the  creation,  and  thus  from  an  inner  necessity  created  the 
world  to  supply  His  own  need,  and  afford  Himself  an  object,  which,  after  all, 
was  not  perfect  and  not  eternal  ?  If  not,  God  must  from  all  eternity — in 
order  to  be  perfectly  happy — have  possessed  that  object  in  something  higher 
than  created  nature.  Nay,  in  some  one,  since  the  object  worthy  of  the  love 
of  the  absolute  personal  Spirit  can,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  only  an 
eternal  personal  one.  In  other  words,  either  an  eternal  and  perfect  Cosmos, 
or  an  eternal  and  truly  Divine  Logos  ;  there  is  no  alternative.  If  the 
human  heart,  even,  cannot  rest  in  the  finite,  how  much  less  the  Divine 
heart  of  love ! 

7.  What  has  been  already  said  leads  to  a  preliminary  criticism  of  the 
various  Unitarian  systems — a  criticism  which  from  the  nature  of  the  case 
can  only  lead  to  an  unfavourable  verdict.  With  all  acknowledgment  of 
the  excellence  which  may  be  boasted  of  in  certain  illustrious  Monarchians, 
Channing  for  example,  it  can  hardly  be  ignored  that  the  view  of  Unitarian- 
ism — apparently  so  sim  pie — is  in  fact  only  superficial,  and  in  principle  even 
not  purely  Christian.  The  Christian  idea  of  God  is  not  Unitarian  in  the  nu- 
merical sense  of  the  word,  but — let  the  expression  be  for  a  moment  allowed — 
very  essentially  Trinitarian.  The  Gospel  teaches  here  much  more  than  the 
simple  "  There  is  but  one  God,  the  Father;"  and  that  which  it  has  more  to 
teach,  is  what  must  presently  occupy  us.  In  the  meanwhile,  the  reminder 
is  by  no  means  superfluous,  "Equidem  hie,  si  quando  aliis  in  S.  S. 
mysteriis,  sobrie  multaque  cum  moderatione  philosophandum  puto,  adhibita 
etiam  multa  cautione,  ne  aut  cogitatio,  aut  lingua  ultra  procedat,  quam  V. 
D.  fines  se  protendunt"  (Calvin).  "  If  in  other  mysteries  of  Holy  Scripture, 
most  certainly  here,  I  think  we  ought  to  philosophise  soberly  and  with  great 
circumspection,  lest  either  our  thought  or  our  tongue  should  proceed  further 
than  the  limit  of  the  Word  of  God  extends." 

Compare  VAN  O.,  Biblical  Theology  of  the  Neiv  Testament,  i.,  §  I2;W.F.  GESS./?;>  Lekre 
•von  der  Person  Christi.  (1856),  §  35  [English  translation] ;  MARTENSEN,  /.  c.,  i.,  p.  122  ; 
the  article  Anti-trinitarians,  in  Herzog,  R.  £.,  i.,  and  the  literature  there  adduced.  For 
an  introduction  to  the  treatment  of  the  whole  idea  of  the  Trinity,  CHRISTLIEB,  /.  c., 
p.  256,  sqq. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

The  proper  distinction  between  the  presentation  of  God  as  Father  in  the  Scriptures  of 
the  Old  Testament  and  those  of  the  New. — Jesus'  consciousness  of  God. — Must  the 
highest  Love  necessarily  possess  an  ob  ect? — And  is  it  unable  to  find  this  beyond  itself? — • 
Monarchianism  and  Unitarianism  in  its  historic  career  and  its  dogmatic  significance. 


17  Ps.  cii.  25 — 27  ;  Rom.  viii.  22. 


THE  SON   OF  GOD.  27$ 


SECTION  LIL— THE  SON   OF  GOD. 

In  the  Divine  Nature  the  Son  of  God  is  personally  distinguished 
from  the  Father;  but  at  the  same  time  so  intimately  one  with  Him, 
that  the  two  cannot  even  be  conceived  of  as  separately  existing.  The 
Father  is  the  Cause,  the  Origin,  and  the  Beginning  of  all  things* 
visible  and  invisible  ;  the  Son  is  the  Word,  the  Wisdom,  and  the 
Image  of  the  Father,  and  thus  the  self-conscious  sharer  of  the  nature 
and  majesty  of  God,  which  in  and  through  Him  most  perfectly 
manifests  itself. 

1.  God,  as  we  have  seen,  bears  the  name  of  Father  in  relation,  not  merely 
to  the  creature,  but  also  to  His  Son,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.     Without  an 
eternal  and  perfect  object  of  His  love,  the  Infinite  could  not  possibly  be 
the  perfectly  Blessed  One  ;  and  this  object  He  has  in  the  Son  of  His  good- 
pleasure.     On  this  account — while  we  read    that   God   loved   the  world 
(riydwr)<Tfv)— it  is  written  that  He  loves  the  Son(&yairS.)1  as  in  an  endless  present. 
When  speaking  here  of  the  Son  of  God  in  His  relation  to  the  Father,  we 
must  have  regard  to  an  accurate  division  of  the  subject.    We  have  now  to  look 
at  it,  not  from  the  Christological,  but  from  the  Ontological  side ;  in  other 
words,  we  have  not  here  to  demonstrate  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  actually 
the  Son  of  God,  but  only  in  general  to  bring  out,  as  clearly  as  possible,  the 
idea  of  "  the  Son  of  God  in  His  essential  relationship  to  the  Father." 

2.  The  idea  that  God  should  have  a  Son  has,  at  first  sight,  something 
strange  about  it.     Is   He  not  the  perfect  and  infinite  Spirit  ?      But  this 
Spirit  is,  at  the  same  time,   the  highest   Love,  of  which  the  inner  life  is 
known  to  us  only  by  its  own  revelation;  and  what  this  revelation  makes  known 
to  us  concerning  a  personal  distinction  of  nature  in  the  supreme  Godhead 
is  mysterious  indeed,  but  not  absurd.      Even  in  the  Heathen  Mythology 
we  meet  with  a  representation  of  sons  of  the  Gods,  demigods,  heroes,  etc., 
in  which  the    consciousness,   at   least,   seems   to   express   itself,   that  the 
Godhead  possesses  a  higher  object  of  love  than  finite  sinful  man.     In  the 
Old  Testament  we  find  the  name  of  son  of  God  given  to  Israel  ;*  to  the 
theocratic  king  as  such  ;3  in  the  figurative   language   of  the  poets,   even 
to  the  heavenly  beings.4     In  the  New  Testament,  also,  the  name  occurs  in 
different  senses.     It  is  bestowed  upon  the  first  man,6  and  likewise  given  by 
Jesus  to  men  who  in  love  manifest  the  image  of  the  heavenly  Father.6     In 
regard  to  Himself,  also — as  we  shall  later  show — the  appellation  is  not 
always  used  in  the  same  sense,  and  with  the  same  design.     But  yet  there  is 
no  doubt  but  in  a  number  of  utterances,  both  of  the  Lord  and  of  His  first 

1  John  iii.  35.  *  Ps.  ii.  7.  *  Luke  iii.  38. 

z  Exod.  iv.  22.  4  Job  i.  6  ;  xxxviii.  7.  •  Matt.  v.  9,  45. 

T  2 


2/6  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

witnesses,  a  metaphysical  relationship  is  thereby  described,  of  which  the 
natural  connection  between  each  father  and  each  son  on  earth  is  only  a 
faint  reflection.  That  this  relationship  is,  in  its  deepest  essence,  incompre- 
hensible for  the  finite  understanding,  lies  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  and  is 
moreover  recalled  to  our  minds  by  Jesus  Himself.7  This,  however,  need 
restrain  no  one  from  gathering,  with  reverent  spirit,  the  beams  of  light 
which  the  Gospel  sheds  on  this  depth  of  the  Divine  life. 

3.  In  the  description  of  this  life  of  God,  we  expressly  made  use  of  the 
words  of  the  Netherlands  Confession  (Art.  viii.),  because  these,  in  their  sacred 
sobriety,  are  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  words  of  Holy  Scripture.     The 
Father  here  bears  the  name  of  God,  /car'^ox^,  of  Whom,  and  by  Whom,  and 
to  Whom  are  all  things,8  in  the  adoration  of  Whom  the  glorification  of  the  Son 
must  ever  end.9      "  By  me  to  the  Father,"  is  the  meet  inscription  on  an 
excellent  picture  of  Christ.     It  is  unnecessary,  moreover,  to  treat  separately 
of  the  Godhead  of  the  Father,  which  meets  with  no  contradiction.     The 
question,  then,  is  what  may  be  established  with  sufficient  clearness  and  ac- 
curacy concerning  the  Godhead  of  the  Son  in  relation  to  that  of  the  Father. 

4.  The  Son  of  God  must,  in  the  Divine  nature,  necessarily  be  another 
than  the  Father.     It  is  true,  God  is  unchangeably  one ;  but  this  unity  must 
by  no  means  be  conceived  of  as  a  merely  numerical  one.     It  is  the  unity 
of  love,  which  bears  in  itself  a  fulness  of  life,  and  distinguishes  from  itself 
its  other  I.     Undoubtedly,  the  word  Person — of  which  more  hereafter — • 
has  its  peculiar  difficulty.     In  any  case,  it  must  be  understood  in  the  sense, 
not  of  individual,  but  of  subject.     It  simply  indicates  that  the  Father  is  not 
the  same  as  the  Son,  but  another  (alius,  non  alittd).     The   fundamental 
propositions  of  Sabellianism  and  Samosatianism  should,  on  this  account,  be 
rejected  as  absolutely  unscriptural,  and — however  apparently  intellectual — 
as  in  the  highest  degree  unreasonable.     The  Father  and  the  Son  are,  as 
the  Netherlands   Confession  has  it,  "  in   truth  and  reality,  distinct  as  to 
their  incommunicable  attributes." 

5.  The  Son  of  God  has  as  such  the  ground  of  His  existence  in  the  Father, 
as  the  Father  has  not  in  the  Son.     This  also  lies  in  the  idea  of  Sonship, 
and  is  expressed,  in  John  v.  26,  in  terms  which  c  .nnot  be  applied  interchange- 
ably to  the  Father.    The  Father  is  therefore  rightly  spoken  of  in  ecclesiastical 
usage  as  unbegotten  (07^7-0$),  the  Son,  on  the  other  hand,  in  accordance 
with  Scripture,10  as  the  only  begotten  (yuofcyye^s).     For  the  same  reason,  He 
is  called  also,  not  a  son  of  God,  but  the  Son  of  God,  God's  Beloved,  God's 
own  Son.11   The  ecclesiistical  doctrine  of  the  Generation  of  the  Son  has,  on 
this  account,  a  scriptural  basis — though  not,  however,  as  already  perceived 
by  Calvin,  in  the  poetic  expression  of  the  second  Psalm,12  from  which  the 
term  itself  was  borrowed — and  it  remains  to  the  credit  of  Origen  that  he 
made  a  daring  endeavour  to  sound  the  depths  of  this  idea.     That  every 
anthropomorphistic  view  must  here  be  as  far  as  possible  removed,  scarcely 
needs  reiteration ;  and  certainly  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  a  conception,  in 
itself  as  scriptural  as  it  is  highly  worthy  of  God,  should  have  become 

'  Matt.  xi.  27.  10  John  iii.  16. 

*  Rom.  xi.  36;  Ephes.  iv.  6 ;  I  Cor.  viii.  6.  "  Matt.  iii.  17;  Rom.  viii.  32. 

9  Phil.  ii.  II.  w  Ps.  ii.  7. 


THE  SON   OF  GOD.  277 

repeatedly  a  source  of  contention  in  the  ecclesiastical  world.  Perhaps  the 
misunderstanding  would  be  in  great  measure  avoided,  if — with  a  reverent 
acknowledgment  of  the  fact — the  word  "  Generation"  were  wholly  avoided 
or,  to  the  entire  exclusion  of  the  idea  of  time,  were  employed  rather  of  an 
eternal  being  begotten,  than  of  an  (already)  having  been  begotten  of  the 
Son  on  the  part  of  the  Father.  In  this  form,  at  least,  the  expression 
presents  no  insuperable  difficulty,  and  simply  indicates  that  the  Son 
continually  has  the  ground  of  His  existence  in  the  being  and  essence  of 
God. 

6.  The  Son  of  God  is  necessarily  partaker  of  the  same  nature  as  the  Father. 
Hence   also  the  same   attributes  are  ascribed  to  Him  as  to  the  Father  ; 
power, 18  knowledge,  u  wisdom, 18  and  other  properties.     In  consequence 
thereof  we  see  that  He  performs  the  same  works  as  the  Father,  such  as 
forgiving  sins,16  quickening  and  judging  men  ;17  and  moreover  lays  claim  to 
no  less  honour  than  is  rendered  to  the  Father.18     It  is  true  that,  as  Son, 
He  is  subordinate  to  the  Father,19  and  accordingly  speaks  of  the  Father  as 
greater  (neifav)  than   Himself; i0   but  this  relation,  inseparable  from  His 
Sonship,    detracts   nothing   from   that   which   belongs   to    His   Godhead. 
"  This  is  a  subordinationism  which  metaphysically  does  not  depart  from 
the   main   line  of   the  Church  confession,  but  completes  the  same,  and 
ethically,  especially,  fills   it  up  ;  and   therefore  is  not — as  the  historical, 
actual  subordinationism  —  an  obstacle  to  the  dim  (ahnaid}  apprehension 
of  the  mystery,  but  rather  is  a  help    thereto "  (Plitt).     He  never  calls 
Himself  God — how  could  He   do  this,  who,  coming  forth  as  the  servant 
of  the  Father,  sought  not  His  own  honour? — but  He  suffers,  nevertheless, 
that  this  homage  should  be  icndered  to  Him  by  a  Thomas  ; 2l  while  the 
footprints  of  Thomas  are  presently  followed  by  Paul 22  and  John.28     And 
with  reason,  since  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  dwells  in  Him  bodily,  i.e., 
essentially,24  and  the  name  of  Lord  (*fytos)  under  the  Old  Covenant  given  to 
Jahveh,  is  ascribed  to  Him  without  any  limitation.  If  the  word  of  Scripture 
is  here  to  decide,  such  facts  fully  entitle  us  to  speak  not  only  of  the  God- 
likeness,  but  also  of  the  Godhead  of  the  Sen,  of  Offa-ns,  not  simply  0ficTr,s 
[Divinity,  in  the  more  general  sense],  "the  most  full  Godhead;  not  simply 
Divine  properties  (virtittes),  but  the  Divine  nature  itself"  (Bengel). 

7.  This,  however,  not  in  such  wise  as  though  the  Son  of  God  were  an- 
other God,  a  sort  of  under-God.     Between    the  Son  and  the  Father  there 
exists  unceasingly  the  most  intimate  community  of  life  and  love.     This  lies 
in  the  nature  of  the  case,  and  is  besides  constantly  asserted  by  the  Son 
Himself.     The  Father  shows  Him  all  that   He  Himself  doeth,25  honours 
the  Son,28  and  has  delivered  all  things  unto  Him.27     The  Son,  on  the  other 
hand,  does  what  He  sees  the  Father  do  ;28  and  is  in  heaven  while  He  holds 

3  John  v.  21.  2I  John  xx.  28. 

4  John  xxi.  17.  K  Rom.  ix.  5  ;  Tit.  ii.  13. 

5  Luke  xi.  49.  M  John  i.  I. 

s  Matt.  ix.  2,  sqq.  M  Coloss.  ii.  9. 

7  John  v.  24—29.  **  Tohn  v.  20 

8  John  v.  23  ;  xiv.  I  ;  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  M  John  vii.  54. 
n  John  v.  19.  n  Matt.  xi.  27. 

"  John  xiv.  28.  a  John  v.  iy. 


278  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

converse  with  men  upon  earth.29  Without  any  limitation,  therefore,  He  is 
able  to  speak  of  all  that  is  the  Father's  as  at  the  same  time  His  ;30  and 
cannot  possibly  find  a  more  forcible  representation  of  the  prayed-for  oneness 
of  His  disciples  than  that  which  is  borrowed  from  His  own  relation  to  the 
Father.  This  original  (metaphysical)  relationship  is  for  Him  as  it  were 
the  archetype,  of  which  the  derived  (moral  and  spiritual)  oneness  of  His 
people  must  be  the  resembling  copy.  Thus  He  Himself  justifies  us  in 
speaking  ot  a  true  oneness  of  nature  (6/i.oov<ria.)  between  Him  and  the 
Father.  It  is  true  this  is  not  actually  indicated  in  the  great  saying  of  John 
x.  30,32  but  it  follows  irresistibly  from  the  oneness  of  power  there  alluded 
to.  And  far  indeed  from  its  being  contradicted  in  those  passages  in  which 
the  Son  speaks  of  Himself  as  subordinate  to  the  Father, us  precisely  these 
last  augment  our  right  to  confess  Him  who  thus  speaks  as  God  Himself, 
since  in  the  mouth  even  of  the  most  eminent  of  the  creatures  they  would 
sound  absurd  and  blasphemous. 

8.  This  relation  between  Father  and  Son  had  not  a  beginning,  but 
existed  from  all  eternity.     Clearly  enough  is  this  assured  to  us  by  the  Lord 
Himself,34  and  by  His  first  witnesses.85     For  there  is  as  little  ground  here 
for  accepting  a  purely  ideal  pie-existence,  as  fcr  speaking  of  a  period  of 
time  before  the  Creation,  at  which  the  Son — previously  not  existing — was 
called  into  existence  by  the  Father.     Arianism,  which  asserts  this  last,  is 
properly  regarded  exegetically  absolutely  unsupported.     A  sound  exposition 
of  Coloss.  i.  15,  1 6,  shows,  not  that  the  Son  is  here  placed  on  a  level  with 
the  creature  as  opposed  to  the  Father,  but  on  a  level  with  the  invisible 
God  as  opposed  to  the  creature.     It  is  at  the  same  time  logically  unten- 
able, since  it  gives  us,  in  place  of  a  revealed  mystery,  an  evident  absurd- 
ity.    "  The  deep  thought   of  Origen    touching  the  eternal  generation  of 
the  Logos   remained  incomprehensible  for  the  commonplace  intellect  of 
Arius  "  (Neander).       In  depriving  the  Son  of  the  predicate  of  eternity,  he 
took  from  Him  the  crown  of  His  Godhead,  and  admitted  into  his  concep- 
tion a  very  unphilosophic  division  of  the   Divine  attributes  into  two  parts. 
In  its  consequences  this  view  must  be  regarded  as  even  definitely  unchris- 
tian, since  it  leads  to  the  adoration  of  the  creature,  undermines  the  Chris- 
tian idea  of  revelation,  and  detracts  not  only  from  the  Godhead,  but  also 
from  the  humanity  of  the  Lord,  by  disputing  His  possession  of  a  human 
soul  (V't'X'O  properly  so  called.     Even  in  its  later  and  present  forms,  it  re- 
mains open  to  similar  objections ;  and  has  just  as  little  chance  as  it  has 
claim  to  b  come  the  Christology  of  the  future. 

9.  As  a  legitimate  consequence  of  all  that  has  been  said,  it  may  be  de- 
duced that  the  Father  gives  the  most  perfect  revelation  of  Himself  in  and 
through  the  Son.     If  the  Father  dwells  in  a  light  unapproachable,  in  the 


29  John  iii.  13. 

80  John  xvii.  10. 

*'  John  xvii.  21,  22. 

K  See  Calvin,  /;/  loco. 

**  John  v.  19. 

w  John  viii.  58  ;  xvii.  5,  24. 

15  John  i.  I  ;  Rev.  xxii.  13  ;  Coloss.  i.  17,  and  many  other  places. 


THE   HOLY  GHOST.  279 

Son  the  Unseen  has  become  visible.36  In  the  Father  we  adore  in  like 
manner  the  Hidden  One,  in  the  Son  we  contemplate  the  God  who  reveals 
Himself.37  "  As  the  human  figure  reflects  itself  in  the  mirror,  and  all  that 
is  in  the  seal  is  found  also  in  the  impression  thereof,  so  in  Him,  as  the 
cutbeaming  of  His  invisible  being,  the  Unseen  has  become  visible.  God 
finds  Himself  again,  and  reflects  Himself  in  the  Logos,  as  in  His  other  I  " 
(Tholuck).  Thus  is  the  Son  one  with  the  Father,  in  the  communion  of  tie 
Holy  Ghost 

Compare,  above  all,  the  standard  work  of  J.  A.  DORNER,  History  of  the  Development 
of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ.  (English  transl.)  ;  J.  CRAMER,  Dissert,  de 
Arianismo  (1856);  S.  HOFMEYR,  Diss.  de  loco  Col.,,  i.,  15 — 20  (1856)  ;  H.  J.  E.  VAN 
HOORN,  De  Kocllii  litibus  (1856);  VAN  OOSTERZEE,  Christologie,  especially  the  second  and 
third  parts  (1857,  1861). 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

T*  What  is  the  sense  of  Prov.  xxx.  4,  and  Psalm  ii.  7  ? — Sense  and  significance  of  Matt. 
xi.  27. — Difference  and  connection  between  the  teaching  concerning  the  Son  of  God  in 
the  Synoptical  Gospels  and  that  of  John. — Critical  review  of  the  places  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  which  the  name  of  God  is  given  to  the  Son  of  God. — Ideal  or  hypostaticc.1 
pre-existence  ? — History  and  criticism  of  Arianism. — Nearer  explanation  of  the  idea  of 
Subordination. — Close  connection  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Son  with  the  Christian  idea  of 
revelation. 


SECTION   LIII. — THE  HOLY  GHOST. 

The  Holy  Ghost,  no  more  to  be  separated  from  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  than  to  be  identified  with  the  one  or  the  other,  is  the 
eternal  power  and  virtue  (mogendJieid}  of  God,  whereby  the  fulness 
of  the  Divine  life,  revealed  in  the  Son,  is  communicated  to  the 
creature  in  its  own  measure. 

i  If  it  was  already  difficult  accurately  to  define  the  dogmatic  concep- 
tion of  the  Son  of  God,  the  difficulty  is  increased  when  we  have  to  speak 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  If  God,  as  a  purely  spiritual  being,  lies  wholly  beyond 
the  sphere  of  our  conception,  how  shall  we  yet  further  succeed  in  thinking 
of  a  Holy  Spirit  within  the  Godhead,  distinct  from  the  Father  and  the  Son? 
We  must  begin  by  reviewing,  as  far  as  possible,  the  doctrine  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture on  the  subject,  in  order — in  the  light  thereof — afterwards  to  inquire 
what  notion  we  have  to  form,  as  well  of  the  Holy  Ghost  conceived  of  in 
Himself,  as  in  relation  to  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Happily,  not  the 
sounding  the  depths  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  nature,  but  the  receiving  and  pos- 

*>  John  i.  iX.  3r  Heb.  i.  3. 


280  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

sessing  of  the  Holy  Spirit  Himself,  is  for  us,  even  as  Christian  theologians, 
the  main  point.  Yet  the  necessity  for  the  latter  cannot  set  aside  the  right 
and  obligation  to  essay  the  former. 

2.  The  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament  as  to  the  Holy  Ghost  cannot  be 
accurately  comprehended  so  long  as  we  do  not  know  how  this  idea  has 
been  already  developed  in  the  Old  Testament.  As  early  as  Genesis  i.  2, 
the  Spirit  of  God  appears,  hovering  as  a  quickening  power  over  the  waters ; 
for  it  is  impossible  here,  without  any  qualifying  addition,  to  think  of  a 
mighty  wind.1  This  Spirit  is  conceived  of  in  Genesis  vi.  3,  as  standing  in 
a  definite  relation  to  man ;  as  striving  with  him,  as  being  vexed  on  his  account. 
Especially  does  He  fill  and  animate  noble,  excellent  men  ;z  and  where  the 
language  of  prophecy  is  heard,  it  is  through  His  powerful  influence.8  He 
comes  with  power  upon  the  Judges  in  Israel,  and  they  accomplish  mighty 
deeds.4  He  transforms  Saul  into  another  man,8  and  renders  David  a 
prophet  of  later  days.6  Notably  in  the  Psalms  is  He  several  times  men- 
tioned as  the  Author  both  of  natural  and  spiritual  life  ;7  while  in  the 
Proverbs  He  is  revered  precisely  as  the  Spirit  of  Wisdom.8  In  the  Pro- 
phetic Scriptures,  also,  we  learn  to  know  the  Holy  Ghost  as  immanently 
present  in  the  Godhead  ;9  but  at  the  same  time  as  promised  and  commu- 
nicated by  God  to  men.10  Determinately  the  genuine  prophets  are 
anointed  by  Him,11  but  His  plenteous  and  universal  distribution  is  reserved 
for  later  days.12  Thus  we  see,  in  the  days  of  the  New  Testament,  a 
Zacharias,  a  Simeon,  a  John  the  Baptist  and  others,  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost.13  Jesus  is  born  of  the  operation  of  this  Spirit,14  filled  without 
measure  therewith  ,16  and  Himself  declares  that  by  the  power  of  the  Spirit 
He  casts  out  devils.  In  turn  He  promises  and  gives  the  Spirit  to  His  first 
messengers  ;16  and  by  no  means  exclusively  to  them.17  Everywhere  in  the 
Christian  Church  of  the  first  age  do  we  see  this  Spirit  living  and  working,  with 
the  most  diverse  gifts.18  Especially  the  Acts  and  Apostolic  Epistles  are 
rich  in  manifold  utterances  concerning  His  work  and  nature,  of  which  a 
complete  enumeration  would  here  be  scarcely  possible,  and  is  just  as  little 
necessary.  What  we  have  already  said  shows  that  the  biblical  conception 
is  only  by  degrees  developed  and  filled  up.  If  at  first  the  Word  and  the 

Compare  Job  xxvi.  13  ;  Ps.  xxxiii.  6. 
Gen.  xli.  38 ;  Exod.  xxxi.  3 ;  Deut.  xxxiv.  9. 
Num.  xi.  25 — 30. 
Judges  xiv.  6. 

1  Sam.  x.  IO. 

2  Sam.  xxiii.  2. 

Ps.  li.  12  ;  civ.  30  ;  cxliii.  IO. 
Prov.  i.  23. 
Isa.  lix.  19. 

10  Isa.  xliv.  3. 

11  Isa.  Ixi.  I. 

12  Joel  ii.  28,  29. 

13  Luke,  chaps,  i. ,  ii. 

14  Luke  i.  35. 

15  Matt.  iii.  16 ;  John  iii.  34;  Matt.  xii.  28. 

18  Matt.  x.  19,  20  ;  John  xiv.  16,  17  ;  John  xx.  22  j  Acts  ii.  4. 

17  John  vii.  38 

18  I  Cor.  xii.  4. 


THE  HOLY  GHOST.  28 1 

Spirit  of  God  are  almost  identified,  later  we  see  these  distinguished  the  one 
from  the  other.19  At  the  same  time  it  is  apparent  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
ordinarily  presented  either  in  relation  to  God  (objectively),  or  in  relation  to 
man,  definitely  to  Christians  (more  .subjectively).  This  last,  the  dynamical 
side  of  the  subject,  will  not  yet  come  under  our  attention  ;  with  the  former, 
the  metaphysical,  we  have  here  more  especially  to  do. 

3.  We  begin,  then,  with  the  observation  that  there  has  at  all  times  existed 
yet  greater  diversity  and  confusion  of  ideas  with  regard  to  the  Holy  Ghost, 
whether  conceived  of  in  Himself,  or  in  relation  to  the  Son  and  the  Father, 
than  there  has  with  regard   to  the  Son.     Gregory  Nazianzen,  in  his  day, 
declared,  "  Of  the  intelligent  among  us  some  regard  the  Holy  Ghost  as  a 
power,  others  as  a  creature,  others  again  as  God  Himself;  yet  others — out 
of  reverence,  as  they  say,  for  Holy  Scripture — know   not  which  part  to 
choose,  since  Scripture  teaches  nothing  definite  in  regard  thereto."     This 
wavering  may  be  easily  explained.     The  Son  had,  at  all  events,  become 
man  ;  the  Spirit  was  known  only  from  His  gifts  and  operations.     The  con- 
troversies of  the  first  four  centuries  had  respect  principally  to  the  Son  ;  and 
thus  a  considerable  period  elapsed  before  anything  was  determined   in 
regard  to  the  Holy  Ghost.     Not  at  Nicaea,  A.D.  325,  but  only  at  Constan- 
tinople, A.D.  381,  was  He,  for  the  refutation  of  rising  error,  confessed  as 

rb  Kijpiov,  rb  faawoibv,  rb  £K  rov  Ilarpij  ^Kvopevo^evov,  TO  ffvv  Ilarpi  KaiTiy(rvnirpoo'i<vvoij- 

fj-evov  KO.I  ffuv5o$xfjv.fvoi>  (the  Lord  and  Giver  of  life,  who  proceeded!  from 
the  Father,  who  with  the  Father  and  the  Son  is  together  worshipped  and 
glorified) ;  while  finally,  not  at  an  (Ecumenical  Council,  but  first  at  that  of 
Toledo,  A.D.  589,  the  words  filioque  (and  the  Son)  were  added  :  which 
addition  afterwards  became  the  sad  occasion  of  the  schism  between  the 
Eastern  and  the  Western  Church. 

4.  If,  however,  we  seek — after  what  has  been  said — to  attain  to  greater 
clearness,  it  is  speedily  evident  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  another  than  either 
the  Son  or  the  Father.     The  ancient  Church  found  this  distinction  already 
indicated  in  Matt.  iii.   16,  17  ;  hence  the  well-known  words:  /  ad  jfor- 
danem,  et  videbis   Trinititem — "  Repair  to  the  Jordan,  and  thou  shalt  see 
the  Trinity."     For  him  who  feels  a   difficulty  in  basing  a  dogmatic  idea 
upon  an  account  like  this,  the  word  of  Jesus  Himself,  in  the  fourteenth  of 
John,  may  at  least  be  conclusive.       The  other  Comforter,  whom  the  Son 
desires   of  the   Father,   and   sends,20    cannot  be  wholly  identified    either 
with  the  Father  or  the  Son.     The  Apostles,  too,  make  this  distinction  with 
the  necessary  clearness  and   sharpness  of  outline.21     Very  distinctly  does 
Paul  ascribe  to  the  Holy  Ghost  the  attributes  of  personality,  self-conscious- 
ness, and  freedom.22     A  thing  is  said  to  have  seemed  good  to  him  -^  and 
believers  are  expressly   warned,  not   simply  against  quenching,  but  also 
against  grieving,  the  Holy  Spirit24 — a  thing  which  appears  conceivable  only 
in  regard  to  a  thinking  and  feeling  subject. 

19  Isa.  Ixiii.  9,  lo,  and  John  iii.  34,  as  compared  with  Ps.  xxxiii.  6. 

20  John  xiv.  16,  17  ;  romp.  xv.  26. 

21  I  Cor.  xii.  4 — 6 ;   I  Pet.  i.  2  ;  Rev.  i.  4 — 6. 

22  I  Cor.  ii.  10  ;  xii.  II. 
ffl  Acts  xv.  28. 

24  Ephes.  iv.  30. 


282  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

5.  The  Holy  Ghost  must  thus  be  thought  of  not  as  a  blind  and  uncon- 
scious force,  but  as  the  personal  "power  and  virtue  of  God."28  Only  in  a 
constrained  manner  can  this  natural  conclusion  from  distinct  data  be 
evaded.  It  is  true,  sustained  personifications  of  an  impersonal  attribute — 
such  as  occur,  for  instance,  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  Proverbs  and  the 
thirteenth  of  First  Corinthians— are  cited  in  favour  of  the  opposite  view. 
But  discourses  like  these,  partly  of  a  poetic,  partly  of  an  oratorical  nature, 
in  praise  of  Wisdom  or  of  Love,  afford  no  parallel  to  didactic  utterances 
and  prophetic  assurances,  such  as  those  we  have  just  referred  to.  Again 
and  again  does  the  idea  of  personality  here  become  apparent,  even  where 
at  first  sight  one  would  not  expect  it,  t.g.,  in  the  opposition  between  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  Satan.26  How  indeed  could  that  power  which,  with 
creative  energy,  in  the  act  of  regeneration  calls  forth  in  the  sinner  the 
highest  personal  life,  be  itself  anything  less  than  a  personal  power  ?  If  it 
is  said  that  they  to  whom  the  "other  Comforter"  was  first  promised,  yet 
received,  after  their  Master's  departure,  no  person,  but  simply  gifts ;  it  is 
forgotten  that  it  is  here  che  very  question  whether  these  gifts  themselves  are 
not  due  to  a  personal — although  as  being  a  spirit,  invisible — Giver.  For 
frequently  the  gift  and  the  Giver  are  definitely  distinguished  from  each 
other  :27  to  make  no  mention  of  the  fact  that  the  Son  of  God  also  is,  at 
the  same  time,  Giver  and  gift.28  It  is  true  there  is  found  in  the  New 
Testament  no  actual  trace  of  precept  for  the  adoration  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
No  wonder,  since  it  is  He  Himself  who  prays  in  believers  f9  so  that  they 
come  to  the  Father,  by  the  Son,  in  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  On 
the  other  side,  however,  Divine  homage  is  rendered  to  Him  in  the  Bap- 
tismal command,80  and  in  the  Apostolic  benediction  ;31  while  moreover  that 
which  is  nowhere  definitely  enjoined,  is  at  least  just  as  little  forbidden  by 
the  letter  or  the  Spirit  of  the  Gospel  of  the  Scriptures. 

6.  To  this  personal  power  of  God  must  be  ascribed,  therefore,  after  all 
that  has  been  said,  nothing  less  than  a  truly  Divine  nature.     This  follows 
of  itself  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  and  is  moreover  repeatedly  indicated 
by  Holy  Scripture.     Divine  properties  are  therein  ascribed  to  the  Holy 
Spirit,  as  kno  wledge,32  sovereignty,33  eternity  ;34  Divine   works,  such  as  the 
creation,35  the  new  birth,36  inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture  ;s7  Divine  honour, 
so  great  that  its  non-recognition   is   placed  on  a  parallel  with  the  non- 
recognition  of  God  Himself,38  and  the  sin  against  Him  is  represented  as 
absolutely  unpardonable  sin.89     The  Arian  opinion  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
the  earliest  of  all  the  creatures  who  were  brought  into  existence  by  the 
created  Son,  does  not  find  in  the  Gospel  anywhere  even  the  appearance  of 
countenance. 

7.  In  seeking  precisely  to  determine  the  relation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to 

25  Netherlands  Confession,  Art.  viii.  K  I  Cor.  ii.  II. 

M  Matt.  xii.  28;  I  Cor.  vii.  5  ;  comp.  chap.  vi.  19.           w  I  Cor.  xii.  II. 

"  I  Cor.  xii.  4.  w  Heb  ix.  14. 

88  Comp.  John  iv.  10  ;  2  Cor.  ix.  15.  **  Ps.  xxxiii.  6. 

29  Rom.  viii.  27  ;  Gal.  iv.  6.  M  John  iii.  3,  8. 

"  Matt,  xx viii.  19.  r  2  Tim.  iii.  1 6. 

w  2  Cor.  xiii.  14.  w  Acts  v.  4 ;  I  Cor.  iii.  16. 

"  Matt.  xii.  31,  32. 


THE   HOLY  GHOST.  283 

the  whole  Divine  Nature,  the  Apostolic  word  (i  Cor.  ii.  10,  u)  sheds  light 
for  us,  and  leads  us  naturally  to  the  supposition  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
(immanently)  stands  in  relation  to  the  Godhead,  as  the  spirit  of  man  to  the 
whole  man.  If  no  one  knows  that  which  is  man's,  save  only  his  own 
spirit,  just  as  little  does  any  one  know  that  which  is  God's,  save  the  Spirit 
of  God  which  is  in  Him.  He  knows  God's  properties,  counsels,  works, 
etc.,  because  He  explores  precisely  these  depths  (tpewq.).  That  exploring 
is  an  activity  which  has  for  its  object  the  depths  of  God,  and  must  be 
definitely  ascribed  to  the  Spirit,  as  the  subject.  In  God,  who  necessarily 
unites  the  highest  self-consciousness  with  perfect  knowledge,  naturally 
nothing  more  can  be  indicated  by  this  assertion  than  an  infinitely  pro- 
gressive process  of  thought  and  life  :  "  the  actuosity  of  knowledge  " — die 
Actiiositat  dcr  Erkenntniss.  As  in  man,  so  in  God,  the  Holy  Spirit  is, 
according  to  this  statement,  the  personal  principle  whereby  He,  and  He 
exclusively,  knows  and  penetrates  Himself,  as  no  one  else  can  do. 
Naturally  our  reasoning  must  here  be  confined  to  the  tertium  comparationis, 
the  point  of  analogy,  and  by  no  means  must  the  idea  be  entertained  of  a 
transition  from  not  knowing  to  knowing ;  but  an  eternally  perfect  pene- 
trating and  comprehending  of  His  own  nature  is  here  to  be  thought  of. 
God  is  wholly  spirit,  and  nothing  but  spirit ;  but  that  in  Him  whereby  He 
knows  Himself  in  the  most  perfect  manner  is,  according  to  Paul,  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

8.  By  means  of  this  Spirit  is  (transcendently)  the  fulness  of  the  Divine 
life — manifested  in  the  Son — communicated  to  the  creatures.  God  mani- 
fests Himself  in  the  Son,  but  communicates  His  life  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  If 
we  do  not  misunderstand  the  hints  given  by  the  New  Testament,  we  are 
to  conceive  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  quickening  energy  incessantly  proceed- 
ing from  God,  even  as  the  breathing  of  man,  as  an  utterance  of  his  life, 
continually  proceeds  from  him.  This  proceeding  of  the  Spirit40  from  the 
Father  must  necessarily  be  something  different  from  the  eternal  generation 
of  the  Son,  but  the  difference  between  the  two  does  not  fall  within  the 
limits  of  our  conception.  The  well-known  question  in  dispute  between 
the  Greek  Church  and  the  Latin  is  perhaps  best  resolved  in  this  sense, 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeds  from  the  Father  by  the  Son,  and  thus,  for 
this  reason  also,  is  called  the  Spirit  of  t  e  Son.41  The  Son  is  one  with  the 
Father,  in  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  To  the  Son  God  gives  the 
Spirit  without  measure  ;42  by  the  Son  the  Spirit  is  unceasingly  communi- 
cated to  His  people.43  To  this  extent  the  Holy  Spirit  is,  according  to 
the  Scripture,  dependent  on  the  Son,  as  He  again  is  on  the  Father ;  yet 
just  as  little  as  this  last  detracts  anything  from  the  truly  Divine  nature 
of  the  Son,  just  so  little  does  the  other  detract  from  the  true  Deity  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  'On  the  contrary,  precisely  in  the  Holy  Ghost  does  the  circle 
of  life  and  being  in  the  Godhead  return,  so  to  speak,  to  its  own  starting-point. 
Est  Spiritns  a  Patrc  per  f  ilium,  says  Tertullian.  "  The  Spirit  is  from  the 
Father  by  the  Son."  With  the  Father  and  the  Son  He  is  a  sharer  of  the 
nature  and  majesty  of  God.  The  Son  is  the  self-revealing  God  ;  the  Holy 

40  John  xv.  26.  4-  John  iii.  34. 

41  Gal.  iv.  6.  <3  John  i.  33. 


284  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

Ghost,  the  self-communicating  God.  "  He  is  the  proper  self  of  God,  so  surely 
as  the  spirit  of  man  is  his  proper  self;  and  yet  not  the  whole  God,  as  the 
spirit  of  man  is  not  the  whole  man.  The  revelation  of  the  Father  closes  in 
the  Holy  Spirit,  in  that  through  Him  the  Father  and  the  Son  make  their 
abode  in  the  believer ;  and  precisely  on  this  account  the  blasphemy  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  (Mark  iii.  29)  a  sin  for  which  there  is  throughout  eternity 
no  forgiveness  "  (Beck). 

9.  The  Holy  Ghost  was  not  shed  forth,44  and  thus  not  yet  revealed  in 
His  fulness,  before  Jesus  was  glorified.  Thus  the  historic  manifestation  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  was  preceded  by  that  of  the  Son,  as  this  was  by  the  pre- 
paratory activity  of  the  Father.  Is  it  perhaps  to  be  attributed  to  this  fact, 
as  well  as  to  the  nature  of  the  case  itself,  that  the  dogma  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  cannot  be  presented  with  the  same  degree  of  clearness  as  that  of  the 
Son  and  the  Father,  and  still,  with  the  future  development  of  the  spiritual 
life  of  the  Church,  awaits  its  own  full  development  ?  In  this  case  the  waver- 
ing of  the  utterances  especially  in  the  earliest  Fathers  on  this  point  can  the 
less  surprise  us.  Assuredly  we  have  not,  with  the  ancient  followers  of 
Macedonius,  to  regard  Him  as  a  creature  and  servant  of  God,  to  the 
ignoring  of  His  Divine  nature  and  dignity.  Rather  must  we  conclude 
with  Athanasius — therewith  to  proceed  to  the  recapitulation  of  all  the  pre- 
ceding argument :  r/aidj  &yia  T<?Aeia  fffrif.  [The  Holy  Trinity  is  also  a 
perfect  Trinity.] 

Comp.  D.  DOEDES,  Onderzoek  naar  het  personeel  bestaan  van  den  If.  Geest  (1844)  '•>  C. 
F.  FRITZSCHE,  Nova  Opusc.  Academ.  (1846),  contin.  4  dispp.  de  Sp.  S. ;  C.  F.  A. 
KAHNIS,  Die  Lehre  vom  Heiligen  Geist,  i.  (1847)  5  VAN  OOSTERZEE,  Christologie,  iii., 
pp.  47 — 53  ;  and  the  article  Geistesgabtn  in  Herzog,  R.  £.,  iv. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Diversity  and  harmony  between  the  doctrine  of  the  Old  Testament  and  that  of  the  New 
concerning  the  Holy  Spirit. — Review  and  criticism  of  the  development  of  the  dogma  of 
the  Church. — What  is  there  in  favour  of  the  recognition  of  the  personality  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  ?  and  what  against  ? — Is  the  Holy  Spirit  also  termed  God  in  the  New  Testament  ? 
— What  is  to  be  deduced  from  I  Cor.  ii.  10,  II,  as  to  the  relation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
the  whole  Divine  Being? — The  difference  on  this  point  between  the  Eastern  and  the 
Western  Church. — Significance  and  force  of  the  hint,  John  vii.  39b. 


SECTION    LTV. — THE    FATHER,   THE    SON,    AND    THE 
HOLY   GHOST. 

If  the   Father,  the  Son,  and  the   Holy  Ghost   are  personally 
distinct  from  each  other,  but  at  the  same  time  joint  partakers  of 

44  John  vii.  39. 


THE  FATHER,   THE  SON,  AND  THE  HOLY  GHOST.          285 

the  same  nature  and  majesty  of  God;  then  the  Christian  confession, 
that  God  has  revealed  Himself  as  a  Trinity,  is  not  merely  based  on 
the  Gospel,  but  also  logically  necessary,  and,  with  all  that  is  obscure 
in  its  contents,  and  imperfect  in  its  expression,  decidedly  preferable 
to  anything  that  has  been  substituted  for  it  in  earlier  or  later  times. 
Only  in  this  threefold  Name  is  disclosed  all  the  fulness  of  the 
Christian  idea  of  God,  so  far  as  this  is  possible  ;  but  at  the  same 
time  the  incomprehensible  character  of  the  Divine  Essence.  The 
pure  confession  of  this,  the  greatest  of  all  the  revealed  mysteries,  is 
the  bulwark  of  Chi  istian  Theism ;  and  for  Christians  themselves 
the  inexhaustible  source  of  enlightenment,  consolation,  and  sancti- 
fication. 


i.  After  we  have  thus  far  treated  separately  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost,  it  will  be  less  difficult  to  determine  with  dogmatic  accuracy 
the  contents  of  the  Christian  confession  of  God's  thrice  holy  Name.  Thus 
much  is  already  apparent,  that  the  Sabellian  Modalism  in  its  earlier  and 
later  forms,  far  from  being  the  pure  expression  of  the  revealed  truth,  does 
not  even  afford  us  a  superficial,  much  less  a  thorough,  acquaintance  with 
the  facts  of  the  case.  The  Christian  idea  of  God  is  Monotheistic,  but  not 
Unitarian.  Deus  solus  esf,  sed  non  soliiarius,  "  God  is  one,  but  not  soli- 
tary" (Peter  Chrysologus).  Faith  recognises  one  God ;  but  confesses  as 
such,  with  the  Father,  also  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  Between  these 
three  there  is  just  as  little  confusion  as  there  is  separation ;  the  plan  of  salva- 
tion proceeds  from  the  Father ;  but  is  executed  by  the  Son,  in  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Son  says  net,  "  I  am  the  Father,"  but,  "  I  am  in  the 
Father;"  and  equally  is  the  Holy  Spirit  distinguished  from  the  Father — 
from  whom  He  proceeds,  and  from  the  Son — by  whom  He  is  sent.  There 
is,  consequently,  not  simply  a  duplicity  or  triplicity  of  impersonal  powers, 
but  a  triplicity  of  personal  self-consciousness  in  the  Divine  Being,  a  tripli- 
city which  ever  blends  in  higher  unity.  As  well  to  the  Son  of  God  as  to 
the  Holy  Spirit  must  be  ascribed,  on  this  account,  together  with  the  pro- 
perties and  operations  which  they  have  in  common  with  the  Father,  a 
certain  characteristic  peculiarity — let  the  expression  be  allowed — of  nature 
and  operation,  which  belongs  to  Them  separately.  In  Scripture  we 
usually  see  more  definitely  ascribed  to  the  Father  the  work  of  Creation ;  to 
the  Son,  the  work  of  Redemption  ;  and  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  work  of  Sanc- 
tification  ;  without,  however,  the  other  two  hypostases  of  the  Divine  Being 
being  altogether  excluded  from  the  task  of  the  one.  The  Father  is  God, 
but  not  without  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost ;  the  Son  is  Himself  God 
(not  God  Himself),  in  communion  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
The  Holy  Ghost  is  partaker  with  the  Father  and  the  Son  of  the  same 
Divine  life  and  nature ;  without  there  existing,  on  that  account,  a  plurality 
of  Gods.  It  is  consequently  inaccurate,  and  a  trithcistic  heresy  under 
the  badge  of  orthodoxy,  if  one  baptizes,  e.g.,  into  the  name  of  God  the 


286  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

Father,  God  the  Son,  and  God  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  errors  of  John 
Ascusnages  and  John  Philoponus  may  sal'ely  be  allowed  to  rest  in  their 
graves. 

2.  The  only  question  is  whether  this  Trinity  is  to  be  conceived  of 
simply  as  a  Trinity  of  manifestation,  or  really  a  Trinity  of  essence;  in  other 
words,  whether  we  here  become  acquainted  with  the  Divine  nature  on 
its  ceconomical  [dispensational],  or  its  ontological  side — rpo-n-os  airoKaM^eus 
alone,  or  also  rp&iros  virap^ews.  The  former  can,  from  the  Scriptural 
standpoint,  scarcely  be  denied ;  but  the  latter  is  doubted  by  many,  for 
this  reason  as  well  as  others,  that  it  is  supposed  the  obscurity  of  the 
problem  for  Christian  thought  is  considerably  lessened  by  this  limitation. 
Such,  however,  is  so  far  from  being  the  case,  that,  on  the  contrary,  precisely 
the  sharp  opposition  in  the  question  just  mentioned  increases  the  difficulty 
in  our  estimation.  For,  if  it  is  said  that  God  reveals  Himself,  it  is  said  in 
other  words  that  He  makes  known  to  us  His  Nature;  and  with  Him,  the 
true  and  faithful  One,  nature  and  revelation  cannot  possibly  stand  opposed 
to  each  other.  The  Revelation  must  at  least  be  the  tempered  reflection 
of  the  innermost  Being,  or  it  would,  contrary  to  its  design,  sadly  mislead 
us.  To  assume  a  Trinity  of  Revelation  without  a  Trinity  of  Nature, 
appears  thus  an  inconsistency  and  choice  of  half-measures.  One  may  make 
the  Trinity  of  Revelation  a  starting-point  for  his  thinking,  but  will  feel 
himself  unsatisfied  so  long  as  he  does  not,  from  that  starting-point,  ascend 
to  the  trias  of  Being.  For  it  will  be  found  in  the  long  run  that  God  cannot 
really  have  revealed  Himself  other  than  as  He  actually  is. 

3.  To  the  question  as  to  the  ground  of  this  confession,  the  positive 
answer  must  be  preceded  by  a  negative.  We  confess  the  name  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  upon  grounds  by  no  means  purely  philosophical. 
It  has  been  sought  to  confirm  the  reasonableness  and  necessity  of  this 
belief  by  an  appeal  to  many  a  remarkable  Trinitarian  distinction,  to  be 
found  not  merely  in  the  system  of  Christian  revelation,  but  also  in  other 
religious  or  philosophical  systems.  Reference  has  been  made,  e.g.,  to  the 
Trimurti  of  the  Hindoos  ;  to  a  sort  of  Trinity  between  the  Gods  of  the  Edda ; 
to  Egyptian,  Platonic,  Cabbalistic  and  other  Triades.  But  although,  in 
our  estimation  also,  such-like  correspondences  are  remarkable,  and  possibly 
far  from  being  accidental ;  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  we  must  not  overlook 
the  fact  that  they  frequently  exist  more  in  appearance  than  in  reality,  and 
that  analogy  in  this  domain  does  not  amount  to  a  sign  of  identity.  In 
the  most  favourable  case  the  maxim  applies  also  here :  Comparaison  n'cst 
pas  raison;  and  although  it  is  asserted  that  the  belief  in  the  Holy  Trinity 
may  to  a  certain  extent  be  justified  a  posteriori  as  rational,  this  is  still  no 
proof  that  reason  by  its  own  light  could  either  penetrate  or  divine  this 
mystery.  Even  though  from  the  Christian  philosophic  standpoint  it  is 
thought  that  the  reflection  of  this  dazzling  light  may  be  seen  resplendent  in 
many  a  domain  of  God's  works ;  we  can  at  best  conclude  therefrom,  that 
at  least  we  do  not  here  find  ourselves  in  the  domain  of  absurdity.  "  It  is 
sufficient  to  maintain  that  that  which  faith  teaches  is  not  impossible," 
says  Thomas  Aquinas  :  sufficit  defcndere,  non  esse  impossibiie  quod  prccdicat 
fides.  The  engagement  made  in  a  former  century  to  prove  the  plurality  in 
the  Divine  nature,  mathcmaticontm  mcthodo,  would — even  if  us  fulfilment 


THE  FATHER,   THE  SON,  AND  THE  HOLY  GHOST.          287 

were  attempted  and  boasted  of — in  the  more  deeply  thinking  mind  rather 
awaken  distrust  than  confidence. 

4.  Just  as  little   does  there  exist  a  chance  of  coming  to  a  satisfactory 
degree  of  clearness  and  certainty  by  an  appeal  to  the  Christian  consciousness 
alone.     It  sounds  very  beautiful,  and  is  also  relatively  true,  when  we  hear  it 
said,  as  by  Marten  sen,  "  For  we  know  by  faith  that  eternal  Life  streams  down 
to  us  out  of  three  personal  fountains  of  Life  :  from  God  the  Father,  who 
has  created  us  ;  from  God  the  Son,  who  has  redeemed  us  ;  and  from  God  the 
Holy  Ghost,  who  sanctifies  us,  and  makes  us  the  children  of  God :  in  this 
Trinity  alone  do  we  possess  the  whole  of  Love."  Following  the  same  course, 
men  like  Liebner,  Thomasius,  and  others,  have  attempted  the  development 
and  defence  of  this  do^ma  in  their  own  manner.     But  who  does  not  see 
that  the  Christian  consciousness  would  never  have  thought  of  expressing 
itself  in  this  way,  unless   it  had  first  been  guided  and  influenced  by  the 
data  of  Holy  Scripture  ?     While  it  is  true  that  the  believer  can  speak  from 
experience  of  the  grace  of  the  Son,  the  love  of  the  Father,  and  the  com- 
munion of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  still  the  nature  as  well  as  the  mutual  relation 
of  this  Divine  Three  remains  a  purely  on tological  question,  which  lies  wholly 
beyond  the  empirical  domain,  and  on  which  the  Christian  consciousness,  as 
such,  can  give  no  answer. 

5.  One  cannot  even  declare,  without  nearer  definition  of  the  terms,  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  can  be  maintained 
from    Holy   Scripture.       Here,    at    least,   we    must    carefully   distinguish 
between  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  and  those  of  the  New;  and 
the  former,  especially,  must  not  be  made  use  of  without  great  circumspec- 
tion.      Who   does   not  know  how  frequently — especially  at   an   earlier 
period — this  rule  was  overlooked ;  so  that  theosophy  found  a  trace  of  this 
mystery  even  in  the  Hebrew  word  signifying  to  create  (103)  ?     Now,   better 
instructed  by  exegetical  and  historical  study,  no  scientific  theologian  would 
any  longer  hesitate  to  return  a  negative  answer  to  the  question  propounded — 
not  without  trembling — by  Calixtus,  two  centuries  ago  :  "  Whether  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  can  be  proved  from   the  Old  Testament  Scriptures 
alone  ?  "  (num  ex  solo  V.  T.  Trinitatis  dogma  probari  queaf).     There   is  not 
one  of  the  so-called  proof  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  which  can  stand 
the  searching  test.     It  was  surely  to  be  expected,  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  that  the  deepest  mystery  of  the  Divine  nature  could  not  possibly  be 
revealed  and  confessed  before  the  fulness  of  the  time.     The   Israelitish 
Monotheism  would  probably  have  -suffered  more  loss  than  it  would  have 
derived  benefit  from  an  untimely  disclosure  of  this  truth.     It  is  something 
very  different,  however,  if  it  is  asked  whether  now,  a  posteriori,  with  the 
light  of  the  New  Testament  Scriptures  shed  upon  us,  we  meet  with  no 
traces,  or,  if  you  will,  no  distinct  indications,  of  this  truth  in  the  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  Testament.     To  this  question  we,  for  our  part,  cannot  refuse 
to  return  a  positive  answer.     In  so  speaking,  we  have  before  us  places  in 
which  the  Deity  is  introduced  as  conversing  with  Himself;  we  think  of  the 
plural  form  of  the  name  Elokim ;   of  the  Aaronitic   blessing;1    of  the 
Trisagion  heard  by  the  prophet ;  *  of  the  sanctity  of  the  symbolical  number 

1  Num.  vi.  24 — 26.  2  Isa.  vi.  3. 


288  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

three ;  and  other  phenomena,  which  prove  nothing  in  themselves,  but,  in  a 
striking  manner,  shed  light  upon  the  truth  already  established  on  inde- 
pendent grounds.  Least  of  all  must  the  Angel  of  the  Covenant — in  a 
word  of  prophecy,  such,  for  instance,  as  that  of  Isaiah  Ixiii.  9,  10 — pass 
unobserved.  We  shall  not  say  too  much  in  asserting,  with  Christlieb,  that 
"  the  impulse  u-ging  to  the  formation  of  this  doctrine  was  already  active 
throughout  the  wnole  of  the  Old  Testament."  Would  not  the  doctrine  of 
the  Salomonic  Chokma  (Wisdom)  also  merit,  in  this  connection,  more  atten- 
tion than  is  sometimes  bestowed  upon  it  ? 

6.  Where,  however,  it  is  a  question  of  dogmatic  proof,  we  see  ourselves, 
on  all  sides,  directed  back  to  the  Gjsfrel  of  tfie  New  Testament?  Here 
again  a  necessary  classification  of  texts  must  precede  the  adducing  of  proofs. 
Places  like  Acts  xx.  28;  i  Tim.  iii.  16  ;  i  John  v.  7,  may,  for  well-known 
critical  reasons,  be  here  quietly  left  out  of  the  argument.  Moreover,  we 
must  never  overlook  the  fact  that  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament 
nowhere  present  us  with  a  compact  system  of  doctrines,  but  simply  supply 
the  stones  with  which  the  building  can  and  must  be  put  together.  "The 
revelation  consists,  not  in  the  communication  of  an  astronomy  to  men, 
but  in  the  unveiling  of  ths  starry  heavens  before  their  gaze,  and  for  this 
gaze  :  they  are  to  learn  and  reckon  out  therefrom  an  astronomy  for  them- 
selves" (Rothe).  It  is,  consequently,  not  the  question  whether  the 
Church  doctrine  is  proclaimed  literally,  and  in  this  form,  in  the  Scriptures 
of  the  New  Testament ;  but  whether  it  can  legitimately  be  deduced — yea, 
necessarily  mast  be  deduced — from  all  the  Scriptural  d.ita.  And  to  this 
question  an  affirmative  answer  is  warranted  on  an  appeal  to  the  utterances 
of  the  Lord  and  His  Apostles,  which  have  been  already  adduced  (§§  Iii.,  liii.) 
in  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit ;  especially 
to  those  which,  in  our  opinion,  admit  of  no  other  conception  than  that  of 
the  ontological  unity  of  the  whole  Divine  Nature.  Notably  we  refer  to 
the  baptismal  command,4  of  which  the  genuineness  is  here,  on  good 
grounds,  presupposed;  to  the  promise  of  John  xiv.  16,  17;  and  to  the 
apostolic  teaching  in  general.  Wnen  we  consider  that  these  strict  Monotheists 
do  not  hesitate  a  moment  to  worship  the  Son  of  God,  as  Lord  and  God; 
that  they  constantly  distinguish  the  utterances  of  the  Holy  Spirit  from 
their  own  word  and  will  ;5  that  no  other  distinction  in  their  conception  of 
God  occurs  so  frequently  as  precisely  the  Trinitarian  one;6  and  that  they 
constantly  ascribe  to  the  Son  what  is  elsewhere  attributed  to  the  Father, 
or  to  the  Spirit  what  is  immediately  before  or  after  attributed  to  the  Son  or 
the  Father,  then  we  cannot  possibly  deny  that  only  in  this  threefold  name 
did  they  see  indicated  the  whole  living  fulness  of  the  Divine  Essence. 
That  also  which  has  not  yet  been  produced  as  a  formula  is  already  postu- 
lated by  their  teaching ;  and  with  all  that  the  Church  Confession  has  upon 
this  point  that  is  imperfect,  it  is  not  difficult  to  show  that  what  has  been 
substituted  for  it  on  essential  points,  in  earlier  and  later  times,  is  in  more 
or  less  direct  opposition  to  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  sacred  documents. 

1  Compare  Netherlands  Confession,  Art.  ix. 

4  Matt,  xxviii.  19. 

'  Acts  xv.  28  ;  I  Cor.  vii.  ;  Rom.  viii.  16. 

*  I  Cor.  xii.  4—6 ;  2  Cor.  xiii.  13 ;  Ephes.  iv.  4—6 ;  \  Pet.  i.  2  ;  Rev.  i.  4 — 6. 


THE  FATHER,  THE  SON,  AND  THE  HOLY  GHOST.    289 

7.  The  objections  raised  on  many  sides  against  this  confession  are  con- 
siderable, but  not  of  such  a  kind  as  to  be  able  to  destroy  the  firm  basis  of 
our  faith.  Reason  unceasingly  asserts  that  three  can  never  be  one,  or  the 
converse;  but  it  forgets  to  substantiate  its  right  to  speak  with  supreme 
authority  and  a  priori  in  this  domain.  That  God  is  alike  one  Person,  and,  in 
tlie  same  sense,  three  Persons,  is  what  Christianity  has  nowhere  professed : 
the  word  person  itself  it  uses  only  reluctantly.  "  Tres  persona"  says 
Augustine  somewhere,  "  si  ita  dicendce  sunt,  non  cnim  rei  ineffabilis  enrinentia 
hoc  vocabulo  explicari  valet : "  "  Three  persons,  if  they  are  to  be  so  called,  for 
the  unspeakable  exaltedness  of  the  object  cannot  be  set  forth  by  this 
term."  He,  however,  who  asserts  that  the  unity  necessarily  sets  aside  the 
plurality  sees  himself  refuted  by  every  ray  of  light,  to  the  nature  of  which 
it  belongs  to  be  refracted  in  seven-fold  colours;  nay,  by  the  human 
personality  itself,  of  which  the  unity  is  certainly  not  destroyed  by  the 
division  into  body,  soul,  and  spirit. — If  we  are  referred  to  utterances  in 
Holy  Scripture  which  seem  to  favour  another  view,  it  must  not  be  over- 
looked that  in  this  domain  each  separate  part  can  receive  light  only  from 
the  whole — not  the  converse.  That  the  whole  of  the  writings  of  the  New 
Testament  advocates  much  more  the  Trinitarian  than  the  Unitarian  view, 
has  been  not  seldom  honourably  acknowledged  by  opponents  of  the  former 
view.  He,  further,  who  finds  Subordinationism,  in  the  evangelical  sense, 
taught  here,  will  seek  in  vain  for  an  exegetical  argument  in  favour  of  the 
Arian  conception  so  frequently  confused  therewith. — To  experience,  also, 
an  appeal  is  made  in  proof  of  the  charge  that  our  doctrine  is  frequently 
defended  in  an  ill-judged  manner,  and  repels  thoughtful  men  from  Chris- 
tianity. For  the  latter  of  these  we  shall  not  be  troubled  above  measure,  if 
only  that  which  is  gainsaid  is  truth ;  and  the  former  makes  manifest  only 
human  ignorance,  which  is  not  found  precisely  among  the  Professors  of  the 
Gospel  alone.  When,  for  instance,  the  ingenious  Jean  Paul  allows  himself 
the  antithesis,  "  that  he  who  rather  disputes  about  the  divinity  of  the  Lord, 
than  does  His  will,  is  like  a  peasant  who  daily  makes  investigations  as 
to  his  lord's  patent  of  nobility,  instead  of  showing  him  obedience  and 
love,"  he  affords  us  a  striking  instance  of  the  caprice  with  which  unbelief 
often  treats  us  to  alternatives  which  exist  only  in  the  imagination  of  its 
adepts. — And  when,  finally,  history  is  adduced  in  proof  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church — so  far  as  its  essential  contents  are  concerned — is  much  more 
recent  than  the  Apostolic  Writings,  the  question  is  called  forth  and  justified, 
whether  this  history  has  ever  really  been  looked  at  with  an  unprejudiced 
eye. 

8.  The  history  of  the  doctrine — the  contents  and  grounds  of  which  we 
have  examined — cannot  here  be  sketched  in  all  its  details.  Only  tho.~e 
questions  regarding  the  history  of  Christian  doctrine  are  here  in  place, 
which  are  of  paramount  importance  for  Dogmatics  itself.  As  far  as 
the  earliest  history  is  concerned,  nothing  is  more  common  than  the  decided 
assurance  that  at  least  the  ecclesiastical  fathers  of  the  first  three  centuries 
were  the  spiritual  kinsmen  and  forerunners  of  the  later  Antitrinitarians. 
Even  though  this  were  so,  we  must  not  forget  that  our  faith,  for  its  final 
authority,  rests,  not  upon  the  testimony  of  the  Church  Fathers,  but  upon 
the  Lord's  own  word,  and  that  of  His  Apostles.  But  it  is  far  from  true 

U 


CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

that  the  Confession  of  Nicaea  at  an  earlier  period  met  with  more  resistance 
than  acceptance,  and  that  the  Church  at  first  held  the  opinion  of  Apolli- 
naris,  which  she  herself  later  condemned.7  It  is  true,  the  second  century, 
as  a  whole,  stands,  in  point  of  gnosis,  not  above,  or  on  a  level  with,  but 
below,  the  Apostolic  age.  Only  by  degrees,  and  after  a  long  period,  in  its 
continual  conflict  with  Judaism  and  Heathenism,  did  Christian  thinking 
learn  to  make  its  own  the  fulness  and  depth  of  the  Evangelical  idea 
of  God.  Definitely,  in  regard  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  desired  unity  and 
clearness  was  long  wanting.  The  period  of  the  Martyrs  and  Apologists 
could  not  possibly  be  that  of  refined  doctrinal  distinctions.  Yet  closer 
research  ever  confirms  the  truth  of  Melancthon's  words,  in  a  letter  to  Ca- 
lixtus  :  "  Demultis  magnis  rebus  vix  suspicari possumus  quid  senscrint  Veteres. 
Cattsam  vero  de  divinitate  Filii  video  firmissimam  esse,  et  sane  gaudeo,  me  in 
promptu  habere  tarn  multa  de  re  tanta  testimonial  "Concerning  many  great 
questions,  we  can  scarcely  conjecture  what  the  Ancients  held.  But  the 
cause  of  the  divinity  of  the  Son  of  God  I  see  to  be  most  solidly  supported, 
and,  indeed,  I  rejoice  to  have  at  hand  so  many  testimonies  on  so  great  a 
question."  The  Greek  name  T/uds,  we  meet  with  first  in  Theophilus,8  while 
the  Latin  Trinitai>  is  only  coming  into  use  in  Tertullian.9  But  the  confession 
itself,  thereby  indicated,  belonged,  beyond  doubt,  at  a  much  earlier  period, 
to  the  regula  fidei; 10  among  the  Apostolic  Fathers  we  find  the  threefold 
name  constantly  mentioned  in  union ;  and  Justin  Martyr  does  not  hesitate 
a  single  moment  to  glory  as  in  the  Father,  so  also  in  the  Son  (<*  3ei/Te><?), 
and  the  Holy  Spirit  (lv  rplrri  rd£fi).n 

9.  The  development  of  doctrine  in  the  Church  during  and  after  the  fourth 
century  must  be  regarded  as  a  well-meant,  but,  at  the  same  time,  only 
human — i.e.,  imperfect — attempt  to  enclose  the  Divine  as  within  a  cadre 
of  as  finely  spun  formulas  as  possible,  and  thus  to  preserve  it  against  being 
distorted  by  unhallowed  hands.  One  must,  in  opposition  to  dangerous 
error,  coin  imperfect  words,  non  ut  aliquid  diceretur,  sed  ne  taceretur, 
says  Augustine — "  not  in  order  to  say  something,  but  in  order  not  to  keep 
silence."  Thus  the  terms  person,  nature  (oi5<ria),  Trinity,  unity  of  natiire 
(ofjLoovffLa),  begotten,  proceeding,  etc.,  came  into  vogue,  terms  which  but  too 
often  gave  the  adversaries  an  opportunity  of  concealing  their  antipathy  to 
the  doctrine  under  a  comparatively  reasonable  polemic  against  the  form. 
If  a  fair  judgment  is  to  be  formed  with  regard  to  these  terms,  they  must  be 
regarded  as  technical  terms  ;  such  as  are  permitted  in  every  other  domain, 
but  in  relation  to  the  infinite  and  unfathomable  are  least  satisfactory. 
"  From  their  origin  and  design  they  do  not  claim  to  be  regarded  as  reli- 
gious-philosophical and  perfect  explanations  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Trinity, 
but  as  ecclesiastical  and  social  protests  against  definite  and  matured  degene- 
rate forms,  mutilations,  and  caricatures  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  pro- 
tests having  their  origin  in  historical  circumstances  "  (Lange).  The  most 
orthodox  fathers — Athanasius,  for  example — distinctly  declared  that  they 
cared  nothing  for  the  words  in  themselves,  provided  only  the  fact  was  ac- 

7  Cf.  Comp.  Dogm.,  Gron.  1848,  p.  35.  •  De  Pud.  c.  21. 

*  Ad  Autol.  ii.  15.  w  Matt,  xxviii.  19. 

11  Apol.  i.  13. 


THE  FATHER,  THE  SON,  AND  THE  HOLY  GHOST.    2QI 

knovvledged.  Certainly  the  expression  Drievuldigheid  (=threefold  nature, 
Latin  Trinitas)  is  preferable  to  the  more  usual  Drieeenheid(=\.r\\iriQ  nature) ; 
person  is  to  be  taken  not  in  the  sense  of  individual,  but  of  self-conscious 
existence.  We  may  also  readily  admit  that  the  Homo-ousia  (oneness  of 
nature),  although  a  legitimate  postulate  from  the  data  of  Scripture  teaching, 
is  yet  no  actual  enunciate  of  Jesus  and  the  Apostles ;  and,  above  all,  that 
the  so-called  Athanasian  Creed  does  not  everywhere  keep  within  the  limits 
of  the  desired  sobriety  and  solemnity  of  language.  There  is  here  only  too 
m  ich  playing  in  a  dialectical  manner  upon  the  numbers  one  and  three  ; 
and  the  whole  symbol  of  faith  reminds  us  involuntarily  of  an  arithmetical 
sum,  in  which  everlasting  salvation  is  at  last  made  the  product  of  an 
accurate  computation.  Salvation's  being  thus,  in  a  one-sided  intellectual 
m  inner,  made  dependent  upon  an  orthodox  notion,  must,  regarded  from  a 
soand  Christian  standpoint,  ever  remain  objectionable.  Still  we  must  here 
be  on  our  guard  against  acting  unreasonably,  and  casting  away  a  precious 
pearl  on  account  of  its  less  valuable  shell.  "  Such-like  formulas  have  their 
edifying  side,"  as  is  well  said  by  Hagenbach,  "  in  so  far  as  they  make 
minifest  the  struggling  of  the  Christian  spirit  to  find  a  satisfactory  expres- 
sion, for  that  which  is  full  truth  in  the  depth  of  the  Christian  conscious- 
ness." 

10.  A  like  judgment  must  be  formed  upon  the  later  doctrinal  definitions, 
as  well  of  the  Scholasticism  of  the  Middle  Ages,   as  of  the  rigid  eccle- 
siastical orthodoxy  of  the  seventeenth  century.     As  far  as  the  latter  is  con- 
cerned, it  were  to  be  desired  that  the  theologians  of  that  age  had  better 
profited  by  the  example  of  wisdom  and  simplicity  given  them  (in  this 
respect  also)  by  the  Reformers.    So  circumspectly  did  Calvin  at  first  express 
himself,  that  he  was  even  accused  of  Arianism;  and  Melancthon  hesitated 
not  to  declare,  Proinde  non  esf,  cur  multum  opirtz  pan  units  in  loris  illis  su- 
preinis  de  D:J,  de  unitate,  de  trinitate  D^i.    "There  is,  then,  no  reason  why  we 
should  greatly  devote  ourselves  to  those  most  lofty  subjects,  the  doctrine 
of  God,  of  the  unity  of  God,  of  the  Trinity  of  G:>d."    This  practical  bent  of 
mind  preserved  for  a  time12  from  such  speculation  as  was  needless,  and  might 
eisily  become  dangerous  ;  but  then  the  polemic  against  the  Anti-Trinitarians 
called  forth  m:>re  subtle  definitions.     Very  soon  arose  hair-splitting  distinc- 
tions between  the  unity  of  the  nature  and  the  triality  of  the  persons  ;  between 
the  attributes  of  these  last,  and  their  activity  partly  in  common,  partly  sepa- 
rate ;  and  the  whole  dogmi  thus  laid  down  was  argued  as  a  logical  proposition 
out  of  the  whole  sacred  Codex,  without  any  distinction  worth  mentioning 
between  the  Old  Testament    and  the  New.     Thus  the  mathematical  point 
of  view  was  confuse!  niDit    sadly  with  the  spiritual;  and  scarcely  can  one 
refrain,  in  listening  to  s:>  many  sophisms,  from  thinking  of  the  questions  of 
Goi  out  of  the  whirlwind,  to  which  Job  must  listen,  but  which  he  was  not 
able  to  answer.      "  Ecclesiastical  Dogmatics,"  says  Nitzsch,  "  has  succeeded 
in  preserving  the  treasure  of  the  Truth,  without  having  rendered  its  formulas 
intelligible  for  the  reason  and  intellect." 

11.  By    this  weak   side  of  the   Church's   development   of  doctrine   is 

12  Witness,   amongst  others,  the  Nd'urlaii.h  Confc-sijn,  Art.  viii.  ;  and  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism^  Answ.  xxv. 

U  2 


CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

explained — although  not  entirely  justified — the  unceasing  opposition  which 
this  dogma  has  m-t  with  in  the  course  of  the  ages,  not  only  on  the  side  of 
Jews  and  Mahomedans,  but  also  of  Christ  ans.  The  history  of  Anti-Trini- 
tarianism  is  almost  as  old,  and  marked  with  as  delicate  shades  of  definitions, 
as  that  of  the  Trinitarian  belief.  The  course  of  this  opposition  from  the 
Apostolic  age  till  the  present  time  belongs  to  the  history  of  doctrines.  Its 
value  is  naturally  entirely  determined  by  the  purity  of  its  principle,  the 
choice  of  its  weapons,  the  greater  or  less  earnestness  of  its  endeavour. 
What  a  difference  between  a  Paul  of  Samosata  and  a  Schleiermacher, — 
between  a  Michael  Servetus  and  a  Channing  !  Moreover,  the  difference 
between  the  highly  speculative  and  the  popular  and  practical  opposition 
must  not  here  be  overlooked.  But  the  strife  against  this  part  of  the  truth 
has  ever  this  significance,  that  it  makes  manifest  on  the  one  hand  the 
strength  of  the  rationalistic  principle ;  and,  on  the  other,  the  powerless- 
ness  of  the  effort  so  to  fathom  the  depths  of  the  Divine  nature  that  it 
should  cease  to  be  a  stumbling-block  for  Christian  thought  One  is 
almost  tempted  to  repeat  the  words  of  the  celebrated  theologian  (Alstedt), 
"The  mystery  of  the  Trinity  cannot  be  comprehended  by  any  creature, 
either  by  the  light  of  nature,  or  by  the  light  of  grace,  or  by  the  light  of 
glory" — neque  in  mine  natura,  neque  lumine  gratue,  neque  lumine  glories 
potest  comprehendi  ab  ulla  creatura. 

12.  Yet  there  have  seldom  been  wanting  attempts  at  the  maintenance  of 
this  truth  in  the  way  of  speculative  construction  and  deduction  of  the 
dogma ;  and  it  is  not  easy  to  form  a  perfectly  just  judgment  on  these 
attempts.  Augustine  in  his  day  sought,  in  starting  from  the  idea  ot  love, 
to  render  the  subject  more  clear  by  distinguishing  in  God  :  the  Father,  as 
He  who  loves  ;  the  Son,  as  He  who  is  loved  ;  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  the 
bond  of  love  between  the  two — Amans,  atnatus,  et  mutuus  amor.  The 
Schoolmen  referred  in  explanation  to  the  analogy  of  the  human  psychical 
life — intellect,  feeling,  will — and  to  the  logical  difference  between  the  first, 
second,  and  third  person  in  every  conversation,  as  an  image  of  the  differ- 
ence and  the  relation  between  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Melancthon  also  ventured  in  later  times — following  in  the  footsteps  of 
Augustine — to  tread  the  speculative  path,  and  to  give  a  presentation  of  this 
truth,  which  was  forthwith  saluted  by  the  Orthodox  as  a  "  somnium  Phi- 
lippi"  That  the  earlier  and  later  Mystics,  too,  would  not  remain  behind 
on  this  point,  will  be  believed  by  every  one  who  comprehends  anything  of 
the  peculiar  tendency  of  Mysticism.13  But,  above  all,  the  last  century  saw 
the  number  of  these  attempts  increase,  because  it  was  thought  that  in  op- 
position to  the  vulgar  Rationalism — the  despised  dogma  could  thus  be 
scientifically  rehabilitated.  Schelling,  for  instance,  pronounced  this  con- 
ception of  God  folly,  unless  it  was  speculatively  explained.  Daub  regards 
the  Father  as  Deus  a  quo ;  the  Son  as  Deus  in  quo  ;  the  Holy  Ghost  as  cut 
satis  est  Deus.  According  to  Hegel,  this  doctrine  is  the  expression  of  the  idea 
of  the  self-realisation  of  God,  as  the  one  who  distinguishes  Himself  from  Him- 
self, and  nevertheless  is  conscious  of  being  unchangeably  one  with  Himself ; 
he  even  assigned  to  the  dogma,  as  thus  construed,  a  first  place  in  his  system 

11  Compare  TWESTEN,  I.e.  ii.,pp.  210—214. 


THE  FATHER,  THE  SON,  AND  THE  HOLY  GHOST.    293 

of  doctrine.  Others,  again,  have  called  to  their  help  the  mutual  relation 
of  thesis,  antithesis,  and  synthesis.  Somewhat  strange,  in  opposition  to 
all  this  restless  endeavour,  sounds  the  bold  assertion  of  Scholten,  that  "  not 
the  slightest  speculative  importance  is  to  be  attached  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity."  As  though  the  highest  truth  did  not  necessarily  furnish  the  most 
abundant  material  for  the  deepest  speculation  !  Nevertheless,  however 
laudable  the  endeavour  may  be  to  master  the  contents  of  our  belief  in  the 
way  of  reflection,  we  must  here  especially  be  on  our  guard  against  accepting 
a  creation  of  our  own  for  the  revealed  truth.  Already  many  a  heresy  under 
a  speculative  form  has  been  applauded  as  the  triumph  of  orthodoxy — until 
it  has  been  put  to  a  test,  the  result  of  which  has  called  forth  a  cry  of  dis- 
dain, like  that  of  Strauss  against  Weisse  :  "  Where  is  the  Symbolum  Qui- 
cunqite?  (Athanasian  Creed.)  Give  it  me  here;  I  will  swear  to  it  ten  times 
over,  rather  than  I  will  once  call  the  propositions  of  our  philosopher  any- 
thing but  nonsense."  That  more  especially  the  recognition  of  the  Divine 
love  can  shed  light  upon  the  mystery  of  the  Son,  we  would  not  willingly 
deny  ;  but  the  personal  existence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  has  as  yet  been  by 
no  means  explained  in  this  way.  It  would  be  dangerous  thus  to  find  an 
immoveable  foundation  for  our  faith  in  speculation  and  reasoning,  which — 
even  in  the  most  favourable  case — would  better  serve  as  a  meet  support. 
For  us,  at  least,  the  firm  foundation  is  given  in  the  Lord's  own  words,  and 
in  those  of  His  witnesses,  which  we  seek  as  far  as  possible  to  comprehend, 
but,  if  need  be,  even  uncomprehended  accent.  That  which  remains  a  cross 
for  our  thinking  is  thus  at  the  same  time  the  crown  of  the  Christian  concep- 
tion of  God. 

13.  The  importance,  both  in  a  theoretical   and  practical  sense,  of  the 
confession  thus  explained,  can  hardly  be  estimated  too  highly.      Not  only 
does  the  doctrine  of  the  Father,  Son,  and   Holy  Ghost  afford  us — more 
than  any  other — a  deep  glance  into  the  full  glory  of  the  Divine  Being,  but 
also  it  merits,  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word,  to  be  called  a  bulwark  for 
Christian  Theism.     It  has  been  said  with  truth    that  many  a  one  in  his 
anxious  avoiding  of  the  so-called  "  three-God   faith,"  has  only  too  soon 
given  up  belief  in  the  living  God  at  all.     An  abstract   Monotheism  which 
shrinks  back  from  this  depth,  easily  falls  away  into  an  arid  Deism,  if  not 
even  into  a  dreary  Pantheism.       Only  where  the   Trinitarian  fulness  of 
life  and  being  in  God  is  recognised  as  an  adorable  fact,  is  also  the  recogni- 
tion of  the  Divine  transcendency,  together  with  God's  immanency,  actually 
assured.     It  is  true    the   finite  understanding    is    unable  to   fathom    this 
depth  ;  but  from  this  very  fact  the  dogma  of  which  we  are  speaking  assumes 
a  higher  degree  of  importance.     It  is  at  once  the  expression  and  the  justi- 
fication of  belief  in  God's  absolute  incomprehensibleness,  "a  memorial,"  as 
Nitzsch  expresses  it,  "of  the    impossibility   of  comprehending  God,  an 
impossibility  not  merely  stated,  but  even  understood  and  comprehended." 

14.  That  which  appears  to  be  a  gold  mine  for  speculation,  is  at  the 
same  time  a  school  for  practical   life.     The  confession  of  the  threefold 
name  points  to  a  God  who  is  not   only  exalted  infinitely  above  us,  but  in 
Christ  is  with  us,  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit  will  dwell  in  us.     It  stands  con- 
sequently in  direct   connection  with  our  enlightenment,  consolation,  and 
sanctification.     Only  where  the  Son  of  God  is  in  truth  inseparably  one 


294  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

with  the  Father,  is  He  for  us  God's  highest,  unspeakable  gift,  in  whom  is 
given  us  at  once  the  last  revelation  and  the  most  perfect  redemption. 
Only  where  God  Himstlf  comes  to  dwell  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  heart 
of  the  sinner,  is  the  new  life  awakened,  the  Chun  h  of  the  Lord  built  up, 
the  regeneration  of  humanity  completed.  That  which  makes  Christianity 
a  religion  for  the  world,  and  the  Gospel  glad  tidings  in  all  the  force  of  the 
word,  is  in  almost  every  point  closely  connected  with  this  our  confession. 
In  its  popular  practical  treatment  for  the  Church  of  the  Lord,  all  must  be 
avoided  which  would  rather  confuse  the  head  tran  warm  the  heart  and 
sanctify  the  life.  Not  the  intellectual  assent  to  an  obscure  article  of  doctrine, 
but  the  living  belief  in  God,  who  has  revealed  Himself  as  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost,  is  absolutely  indispensable  to  salvation.  But  for  the  science 
of  faith  there  lies  here  a  treasure,  which  it  may  just  as  little  surrender 
as  overlook.  "The  intellect  will  never  penetrate  this  mystery  in  its 
quomodo  (mode  of  existence),  but  the  quid  and  qi/are,  the  essential  con- 
tents and  the  inner  necessity,  our  thinking  can  well  comprehend"  (Plitt). 
It  becomes  apparent,  also,  with  regard  to  this  truth,  that  the  know- 
ledge even  of  the  profoundest  seers  is  but  in  part;  depths  like  these 
are  the  more  calculated  to  call  forth  the  hope  for  that  higher  light  which 
will  rise  in  a  better  world.  A  Dante  enjoyed  for  his  feeling  the  highest 
blessedness,  where  he  heard  sung  in  Paradise  the  praise  of  the  threefold 
name ;  and  a  Melancthon  dwelt  upon  the  prospect,  "  there  we  shall  see 
the  Holy  Trinity" — "  ibi  sanctam  Trinitatem  videbimus."  He  who  with  the 
latter  expects  that  that  which  is  here  in  part  shall  one  day  be  done  away, 
goes  his  way,  in  this  investigation  also,  consoled  by  a  higher  light,  ever 
"  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Compare  F.  C.  BAUR,  Die  Lehre  von  der  Drcieinigkeit  und  Mensc/iwerdnng  Gottes, 
u.  s.  w.  (1841 — 1843)  5  MEIER,  Die  Le'ire  von  der  2'rin.  in  hist.  Enlw.  (1844)  ;  J.  H. 
SCHOI.TEN,  De  Chr.  leer  des  V.,  Z.  en  H.  G.,  in  the  Jaarbb.  voor  W.  Th.  (1845)  ;  J.  J. 
VAN  TOORENENBERGEN,  /.  c.,  pp.  48 — 80 ;  the  article  of  NEUDECKER,  Trinitat,  in 
Herzog,  A\  E.  xvi.,  and  the  literature  there  referred  to;  our  Christologie,  iii.,  p.  53. 
Further,  the  principal  handbooks  of  the  History  of  Doctrine.  On  the  present  state  of  the 
question,  C.  BECK,  Chr.  Dogm.  Gesch.  (1864),  P-  264,  sqq.  On  its  scientific  treatment 
and  practical  significance,  CHRISTLIEB,  /.  c.,  p.  297,  sqq.  For  a  model  of  homiletical 
treatment,  A.  MONOD,  La  Doctrine  Chrit.  (1869),  pp.  57 — 107. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

The  Church's  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  opposed  to  Sabellianism. — Sense  and  signifi- 
cance of  the  distinction  between  Trinity  of  essence  and  Trinity  of  revelation.-  -Review  and 
criticism  of  the  proofs  from  the  Old  Testament,  especially  as  formerly  cited  for  this 
doctrine. — Is  the  doctrine  to  be  proved  Kara  didvoiav,  or  also  /caret  pi)Tov,  from  the  Scriptures 
of  the  New  Testament? — The  polemic  against  the  Church  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  its 
different  phases. — The  Antitrinitarians  of  the  first  three  centuries  compared  with  those  of 
the  age  of  the  Reformation. — The  position  of  Rationalism  and  of  Mysticism,  in  relation  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost. — The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  the  newer 
speculative  systems. — Necessity,  possibility,  and  importance  of  continued  investigation. — 
Christian  art  in  presence  of  this  revealed  mystery. — What  may  be  safely  surrendered  in 
the  treatment  of  this  mystery  publicly  to  edification,  and  what  must  be  preserved  at  any 
price? 


GOD'S  PLAN  OF  THE  WORLD.  295 


SECTION  LV. — GOD'S  PLAN  OF  THE  WORLD. 

The  developed  idea  of  God  leads  necessarily  to  the  idea  of  a 
Divine  plan  with  regard  to  the  world  ;  which — eternal  and  inde- 
pendent as  God  Himself — develops  itself  in  the  course  of  time,  but 
to  which  the  fitting  key  is  found  only  in  the  records  of  the  Christian 
Revelation  of  Salvation.  That  plan  of  the  world  has  in  view 
nothing  less  than  the  founding  of  a  kingdom  of  God,  immeasurable 
in  extent,  under  one  Head,  the  God-man  ;  through  whom  all  the 
members  stand  in  the  closest  relation  to  each  other  and  to 
Him.  The  gradual  realisation  of  this  thought,  fraught  with 
blessing,  to  the  glorifying  of  His  Name,  is  the  final  aim  of  all 
God's  works. 

1.  The  connection  between  the  discussion  of  the  idea  of  God  and  that  of 
the  Divine  plan  of  the  world  is  not  difficult  to  discover.     Thus  far  we 
were  learning  to  know  God  as  the  self-conscious  and  freely-working  Spirit, 
who  possesses  in  Himself  an  infinite  fulness  of  life,  which,  as  He  is  the 
highest  Love,  He  cannot  cease  to  reveal  and  to  communicate  to  others. 
That  He  actually  has  done  and  is  doing  this,  will  become  very  soon  appa- 
rent to  us  upon  a  glance  at  God's  works.     But  these  works  are  simply  the 
expression  and  realisation  of  an  eternal  thought  of  God ;  and  in  order  pro- 
perly to  comprehend  them,  the  knowledge  of  the  Divine  plan  of  the  world 
is  thus  necessary  beforehand.     Of  this  plan  in  general — to  be  carefully  dis- 
tinguished as  yet  from  the  decree  of  redemption  and  from  the  doctrine  of 
election — we  have  now  to  treat,  in  order  thus  to  preface  the  way  for  the 
doctrine  of  Creation  and  Restoration. 

2.  The  idea  of  a  Divine  plan  in  regard  to  the  world  calls  for  further 
elucidation,  that  it  may  not  lead  to  a  wrong  conception.     Rightly  are  we 
here  warned  against  every  anthropomorphistic  view.     Man  also  forms  for 
himself  a  plan,  but  time  separates  between  his  projecting  and  the  execution 
of  his  design,  and    not    seldom   is  the   latter  delayed  or  prevented  by 
wholly  unexpected  circumstances.      All  such  thoughts  must,  as  is  self- 
evident,  be  as  far  as  possible  got  rid  of  in  connection  with  the  Infinitely 
Perfect  One,  and  nothing  must  be  admitted  into  the  idea  of  the  world-plan, 
which  would  lead  us  to  ascribe  to  the  Eternal  anything  absurd.     No  lapse 
of  time  between  plan  and  execution ;  no  wavering  in  the  determination 
either  of  end  or  means ;  no  more  or  less  arbitrary  choice  out  of  various 
abstract  possibilities.     Speaking  in   our  imperfect   language  of  a  Divine 
plan  of  the  world,  we  mean  that  which   God  definitely  wills,  and  thus, 
consequently,  presents  to  Himself  as  the  final  aim  of  all  His  works,  in  con- 
tradistinction from  that  which  He  either  does  not  will,  or  does  not  thus 


296  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

will.  No  Divine  world  of  ideas,  in  the  Platonic  sense,  herein  stands  before 
our  mind  ;  but  a  holy,  Divine  decree;  for  which  that  which  at  God's  behest 
became  gradually  realised,  already  existed  beforehand  in  thought. 

3.  God  thus  wills  something-,  and  He  knows  what  He  wills,  and  where- 
fore He  wills  it.     The  existence  of  a  plan  of  the  world  in  this  sense  cannot 
be  disputed,  where  the  personality  of  God  is  acknowledged.     Here,  it  is 
not  something  purely  human  which  is  arbitrarily  transferred  to  God  ;  but,  on 
the  contrary,  something  Divine,  of  which  the  trace  also  is  to  be  discovered 
in  man  created  after  His  image.     If  God  is  eternal  and  omniscient,  He 
must  also  have  foreseen  what  happens  in  time, — have  foreseen,  yea,  even 
have  determined  and  ordained,  or  the  whole  world  would  not  be  uncon- 
ditionally dependent  upon  Him.     If  He  is  wise  and  holy,  He  must  have 
had  also  a  perfect  aim  before  His  Spirit,  and  must  will  the  attaining  of  this 
end  by  means  worthy  of  Himself.     If  He  is  supreme  and  sovereign,  He  must 
be  absolute  Disposer  of  all  thit  exists  ;  and  if  nothing  of  an  arbitrary  kind 
is  to  be  ascribed  to  this  Sovereign,  He  must  have  a  plan  in  regard  to  the 
world.     The  existence  of  such  a  world-plan  is  a  postulate  of  the  thinking 
mind,  but,  at  the  same  time,  of  the  religious  feeling,  which  cannot  possibly 
rest  satisfied  with  the   conception  of  an   inactive  God.      Certainly   the 
question  what  God  was  doing  before  the  creation  of  the  world,  has  often 
been  put  in  an  unbecoming  manner,  and  in  that  case  has  deservingly  been 
discountenanced.    But  this  question  cannot  always  be  answered  by  authorita- 
tive utterances,  and  the  Dogmatics  of  the  Church  has  acknowledged  its  rela- 
tive right  in  treating  the  doctrine  of  God's  decrees  before  that  of  His  Works. 
It  felt  the  necessity  to  make  for  itself  a  representation  of  God  as  from 
all  eternity  thinking,  willing,  determining,  preparing,  that  which  should  take 
place  in  the  course  of  time.    As  well  earlier  as  later  philosophers — in  so  far 
as  they  have  approached  to  the  recognition  of  the  personality  of  God — have 
admitted  this  element  in  their  notion  of  God.  and  the  earlier  ecclesiastical 
conception  of  a  "  Counsel  of  Peace "  also  originated  in  this  necessity. 
Nothing  is  easier  than  contemptuously  to  mock  at  all  Teleology ;  but  if 
this  be  wholly  denied,  there  results  a  Naturalistic  view,  which  only  too 
easily  slides  into  practical  Atheism.     If  we  are  not  to  assume  that  the 
universe  has  no  higher  ground  and  aim  than  that  which  is  to  be  found  in 
itself,  then  the  purely  aesthetical  view  of  the  world  must  alternate  with  an 
ethical-teleological  one, — i.e.,  we  must  seek  to  comprehend  creation  as  the 
work  of  a  Being  who  from  all   eternity  had  conceived  it  in  His  mind. 
Naturally  this  will  and  counsel  of  God  is  not  to  be  separated  from  His 
essential  being,  which,  on  the  contrary,  is  therein  shadowed  forth  and 
expressed.     But  although  (in  point  of  fact)  one  therewith,  this  counsel  and 
will  must  be  able  to  a  certain  extent  to  disclose  itself  to  the  eye  of  thought- 
ful believers.    It  is,  as  it  were,  the  inner  work  of  God  which  precedes  His 
activity  without. 

4.  If  thus  reason  already  compels  us  to  assume  the  existence  of  a 
Divine  plan  of  the  world,  the  contents  of  that  plan  can  be  known  to  us 
only  in  the  light  of  its  own  revelation.  Here  also  the  history  of  religion 
and  philosophy  confirms  to  us  the  uncertainty  of  all  human  conjecture  ;  at 
every  turn  the  thread  which  we  thought  we  had  secured  escapes  us  again. 
Great  is  our  debt  of  thankfulness  to  God  that  He  has  given  a  more  satis- 


GOD'S   PLAN   OF  THE  WORLD. 


297 


factory  answer  to  these  ever-recurring  questionings,  in  the  word  of  prophet 
and  apostle — above  all,  in  that  of  Christ.  Even  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
Testament  unequivocally  testify  that  all  things  take  place  according  to  the 
counsel  and  the  foreknowledge  of  God.1  The  Lord  Himself  also  refers  to 
an  exalted  Divine  good-pleasure  f  and  in  harmony  therewith,  to  the  spiritual 
oneness  of  His  people,  in  Him,  with  each  other,  and  with  God,  as  the 
final  aim  to  be  realised  with  regard  to  them  in  the  future.8  Especially  is 
it  the  highly  enlightened  and  deeply  philosophic  Paul  who  makes  known 
to  us  the  mystery  of  God's  good-pleasure,  as  aiming  at  nothing  less  than 
the  founding  of  an  all-embracing  kingdom  of  God  under  His  Son,  as  the 
at  once  Divine  and  human  Head.4  In  consequence  of  a  higher  revela- 
tion,5 he  here  gives  expression  to  a  thought  already  in  principle  implied  in 
the  Gospel  of  the  Kingdom,  which  was  proclaimed  by  Jesus  Himself. 
Thus  he  places  before  us  an  ideal,  which  derives  its  surest  guarantee  from 
its  own  contents,  because  nothing  can  be  conceived  of  in  comparison 
which  may  be  regarded  as  more  godlike,  glorious,  and  blessed. 

5.  The  exaltedness  of  this  plan  already  appears  when  we  consider  it  in 
itself,  but  still  more  when  we  compare  it  with  other  presentations  which  have 
been  in  earlier  or  later  times  commended  instead  of  it.  It  is  wholly  unlimited, 
and  comprehends  all  that  exists.  Consciously  or  unconsciously,  all  must  sub- 
serve and  work  together  to  one  adorable  end.  It  is  moreover  purely  moral, 
such  as  is  only  to  be  expected  of  a  holy  God :  the  founding  of  one  spirit- 
ual kingdom  of  truth  and  love,  of  holiness  and  blessedness.  The  solution 
of  the  highest  life-questions  for  the  individual  man  and  for  humanity 
lies  thus,  not  in  the  physical,  not  even  in  the  purely  intellectual,  but 
in  the  religious  and  ethical  domain.  This  Divine  plan  of  the  world  is 
moreover  indeptndent  and  eternal*  It  was  not  first  formed  with  a  view  to 
counteract  the  effects  of  sin  ;  but  was  originated  independently  thereof. 
Neither  reason  nor  Holy  Scripture  affords  ground  for  the  opinion  that 
the  free  will  of  sinful  man  has  set  aside  God's  original  design.  On 
the  contrary,  God's  plan  with  regard  to  the  world  dates  from  before  the 
times  of  the  ages  ;  and  even  the  abuse  of  freedom  made  by  man  was  taken 
up  by  God  as  a  link  in  the  chain  of  its  development.  It  has  its  ground, 
not  in  the  creature,  but  in  God's  own  sovereign,  immutable  good-pleasure ; 
and  has  as  its  centre  Him  in  whom,  as  its  spiritual  Head,  the  whole 
of  humanity  is  represented  before  God,  the  Chosen  One,  in  whom  the  good- 
pleasure  of  the  Father  is  fulfilled  to  an  ever  greater  extent. 

No  philosophic  notion  of  God's  plan  in  regard  to  the  world,  whether  of 
earlier  or  later  times,  can  bear  comparison,  in  point  of  inner  sublimity,  with 
that  of  the  Gospel.  The  absolutistic  theory  of  Leibnitz  and  others,  who  see  the 
final  aim  of  all  things  exclusively  in  the  glorifying  of  God — especially  of  His 
sovereignty — runs  the  risk  of  bringing  this  sovereignty  of  God  into  opposition 
with  His  wisdom  and  love,  and  while  insisting  merely  on  that  which  is  in 
itself  true,  "creavit  sibi"  (He  created  for  Himself),  to  overlook  the  equally 
true  assertion,  "creavit  nobis"  (He  created  for  us);  while,  in  its  conse- 

1  Ps.  xxxiii.  1 1  ;  Isa.  xlvi    IO.  4  Ephes.  i.  10 ;  compare  Coloss.  i.  19,  20. 

-  Matt.  xi.  25,  26.  *  Compare  Ephes.  iii.  4—6. 

»  John  xvii.  20,  21.  "  Ephes.  i.  4,  5 ;  Rom.  xi.  34,  35. 


298  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

quences,  it  leads  to  Fatalism  and  Quietism. — The  eudcemonistic  view,  as 
advocated  by  Steinbart  and  those  of  his  school,  avoids  this  rock,  it  is  true, 
in  making  the  happiness  of  the  creature,  particularly  that  of  man,  the  final 
aim  in  the  creation.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  this  view  awakens  and 
cherishes  a  spirit  of  pride,  which  is  ever  again  contradicted  and  humbled 
by  every  glance  at  the  universe ;  and  it  is  moreover  absolutely  unable  to 
give  even  a  tolerable  explanation  in  regard  to  a  countless  number  of  facts. — 
The  moralistic  theory,  finally,  as  represented  by  Kant  and  his  school,  which 
regards  the  final  aim  in  creation  to  be  the  promotion  of  a  higher  order  of 
things — an  order  which  cannot  but  be  a  moral  one — no  doubt  takes  a 
higher  rank  than  the  two  preceding  ones,  yea,  is  even  in  a  certain  respect 
"  not  far  from  the  kingdom  of  God."  But  that  which  it  proclaims  of  truth 
is  expressed  much  more  clearly  and  powerfully  in  the  Gospel  of  the  king- 
dom ;  and  that  order  of  the  world  which  the  philosopher  sets  before 
himself  as  the  highest  ideal  is,  according  to  the  testimony  alike  of  the  Gospel 
and  of  experience,  brought  about  only  by  God  in  Christ.  Far  above  every 
airy  abstraction  stands  thus  the  revealed  mystery  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 
The  higher  truth  of  Absolutism,  Eudsemonism  and  Moralism  has  already 
been  comprehended  ages  ago,  in  the  great  word  of  Paul,  Ephes.  i.  10. 
It  is  quite  true  "God  has  created  all  things  ....  to  serve  their  Creator;"  7 
but  this  final  aim  cannot  be  separated  even  in  thought  from  the  well-being 
of  His  creatures,  notably  of  man,  because  God  wills  to  be  glorified  precisely 
therein  and  thereby.  And  that  happiness  again  is  most  eflectually  advanced 
where  the  moral  order  of  things,  nay,  where  the  kingdom  of  truth  and  love,  of 
light  and  life,  is  founded.  "As  love,"  says  Martensen,  "is  the  impelling 
cause  of  the  creation,  so  is  the  kingdom  of  love  its  final  aim — causa  finalis 
creationis.  In  the  kingdom  of  love,  however,  God  and  the  creation  are 
mutually  related  as  means  and  end." 

6.  A  modification  of  this  Divine  plan  of  the  world  is  evidently,  after  what 
has  been  said,  just  as  inconceivable  as  a  change  of  God's  own  nature. 
It  is  not  even  Scriptural,  and  just  as  little  is  it  rational,  to  speak  of  Divine 
decrees  in  the  plural.  There  is  simply  one  Divine  decree,  which  we  have 
already  learnt  to  recognise  in  a  general  way,  and  which  we  shall  later  speak 
of  to  a  greater  extent.  Since,  however,  this  plan  of  the  world  is  realised 
in  Christ,  the  question  arises  of  itself,  whether  the  Son  of  God  would  still 
have  become  incarnate,  even  though  sin  had  not  entered  into  the  world. 
More  than  formerly  has  the  question  begun  to  occupy  theologians  in  our 
day ;  and  presumptuous  as  it  would  be  to  decide  the  question  in  an  offhand 
manner,  just  as  superficial  would  it  be  straightway  to  pass  by  it  with  an 
indifferent  shrug  of  the  shoulders.  It  is  closely  connected  with  another, 
whether,  namely,  humanity,  even  in  an  uninterrupted  normal  development, 
could  have  attained  to  its  destination  without  contemplating  the  highest  Revela- 
tion of  the  Godhead ;  and  if  not,  whether  this  could  have  been  conferred  out 
of  Him  who  was  Himself  the  image  of  God,  after  which  man  was  made,  and 
who  consequently  already  stood  in  an  original  relationship  to  God's  rational 
creatures.  However  this  question  may  be  answered,  in  no  case  can  it  be 
spoken  of  as  an  alteration,  or  essential  modification,  of  God's  plan  in 

7  Netherlands  Confession,  Art.  xii. 


GOD'S   PLAN   OF   THE   WORLD.  299 

regard  to  the  world,  that  He,  \vho  as  the  highest  revelation  of  God.  and  the 
most  exalted  ideal  of  humanity,  was  originally  destined  to  be  the  Head  of 
the  kingdom  of  God,  did  after  the  fall  appear  in  human  flesh  as  the 
Redeemer  of  sinners. 

7.  The  realisation  of  the  world-plan  of  God  takes  place  in  time,  i.e.,  by 
degrees  and  after  a  long  interval.  In  order  to  be  able  to  watch  the  progress 
of  its  fulfilment,  we  must  set  before  our  eyes  the  works  of  God.  This 
plural  also  is  not  irreprehensible ;  properly  speaking,  God  accomplishes 
only  one  work,  the  execution  of  His  eternal  counsel ;  but  the  extent  of  His 
sphere  of  working,  combined  with  our  limited  capacity,  renders  necessary 
a  further  division.  The  works  of  Creation,  Providence,  and  Redemption 
afford  us  thus  a  threefold  material  for  contemplation.  Since,  however,  we 
can  speak  of  Redemption  only  ufter  we  have  treated  of  Anthropology  and 
Hamartology,  we  have  in  this  part  of  our  inquiry  to  confine  ourselves  only 
to  the  two  first-named. 

Compare  on  this  whole  subject,  F.  HOSSEUS,  De  notionibus  prmndetuia  et  pradestina- 
tionis  in  ipsa  S.  S.  exhibitis  (1 868);  on  the  question  raised  in  the  sixth  paragraph,  my 
Christologie,  part  iii.,  pp.  85 — 90  ;  to  which  may  now  he  added  the  new  edition  of  the 
there-mentioned  treatise  of  J.  MULLER,  in  his  Dogm.  AbhandL  (1870),  pp.  66 — 126. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

The  rights  and  the  limits  of  Teleology  in  the  sphere  of  Christian  philosophy. — Sense 
and  significance  of  Ephes.  i.  10. — Further  criticism  of  the  different  philosophical  presenta- 
tions of  the  Divine  world-plan. — Is  the  proper  reason  for  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of 
God  to  be  found  in  the  presence  of  sin  ? — The  light  shed,  by  the  knowledge  of  this  plan, 
upon  the  history  of  the  world  and  of  humanity. — Adoration  the  last  word,  as  well  as  the 
first,  in  the  doctrine  concerning  God. 


30O  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 


SECOND    DIVISION. 
GOD'S  WORKS. 

SECTION   LVI. — THE   UNIVERSE. 

THE  Christian  confession  of  God,  as  the  Creator  of  the  Universe, 
is  the  expression  of  the  belief  that  all  which  exists  outside  of  God, 
has  the  ground  of  its  existence  only  in  His  almighty  will.  This 
belief  demands  that  God  should  be  thought  of  as  the  free-working 
Cause,  not  only  of  the  present  form,  but  also  of  the  original  material 
of  all  things.  It  confesses  that  He  called  all  things,  both  visible  and 
invisible,  into  existence  by  the  word  of  His  power.  It  rejects  the 
idea  of  an  eternal  creation  as  self-contradictory;  and  further  rejects, 
in  this  domain,  every  presentation  which  would  detract,  even  in 
the  slightest  degree,  whether  in  principle  or  in  fact,  from  the  recog- 
nition of  the  living  God  as  the  self-conscious  and  independent  cause 
and  fountain  of  life  to  all  things. 

i.  "I  believe  in  God  the  Father  Almighty,  Maker  of  heaven  and 
earth."  This  first  article  of  belief1  affords  us  at  the  same  time  a  suitable 
point  of  transition  from  the  former  chapter,  and  inexhaustible  mate- 
rial for  further  examination.  That  examination  has  its  recommendation  in 
itself  and  in  the  history  of  all  ages,  which  shows  that  no  thinking  mind  can 
dispense  with  the  question  as  to  the  first  origin  of  that  which  exists.  "  I  ever 
return/'  wrote  d'Alembert  once  to  Voltaire,  "  to  the  question  of  the  ancient 
Indian  king,  'Wherefore,  after  all,  does  anything  exist?'  since  this  is  in 
reality  the  most  astonishing  thing  of  all."  And  Voltaire  himself,  the  ^age 
of  Ferney,  as  his  contemporaries  called  him,  was  not  ashamed  to  make  the 
confession  : — 

"  Le  monde  m'embarrasse,  et  je  ne  puis  songer 
Qu'un  horloge  si  beau  soit  sans  horlogier." 

It  is  indeed  so  ;  every  glance  we  take  at  the  glorious  universe  compels  us  to 
inquire  as  to  its  origin,  and  the  idea  of  causation — which  we  all  have  in 
common — urges  us  to  ascend  to  the  conception  of  a  Supreme  Cause. 


Comp.  Neth.  Confess.,  Art.  xii. 


THE  UNIVERSE.  ?OI 

w 

Already  convinced  of  His  existence,  we  are  now  prepared  studiously  to 
observe  the  revelation  of  His  character  as  seen  in  His  works — in  the  work 
of  Creation  first  of  all,  the  proper  consideration  of  which  may  be  regarded 
at  the  same  time  as  the  touchstone  of  the  purity  of  our  whole  conception 
of  God. 

2.  Where  we  speak  of  God  as  the   Creator  of  all  that  lives  and  exists, 
we  make  use  of  a  word  with  which  it  is  far  from  easy  for  us,  finite  beings 
as  we  are,  to  associate  the  right  meaning.     The  idea  is  expressed  by  various 
terms  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament ; ?  but  they 
always  indicate  that  working  of  Divine  Omnipotence  to  which  the  universe 
owes  not  only  its  existence  (bestaaii),  but  it;  first  origin  (ontstaaii).      In  the 
form  of  Kal.  in  which  the  first  word  is  used  (Gen.   i.   i),  it  is  employed 
only  of  a  Divine  operation.     And,  however  little  the   fact   itself  comes 
within  the  sphere  of  our  imagination,  it  is  clear  that  here  a  beginning  of  all 
things  is  meant,  which  takes  place  through  Him  who  originally  was  ;  so 
that  the  world  is  not  causa  sni, —  not  of,  from,  and  by  itself,  but  of,  from, 
and  by  the  Almighty.  And  this,  not  in  the  sense  that  it  is  simply  an  emana- 
tion from  being,  an  accidms  of  the  Divine  life-substance,  a  genesis  or  trans- 
formation of  God,  a  blind,  passive,  pathological  evolution  of  His  nature  ; 
but  in  such  wise  that  it  is  the  product  of  His  life-awakening  power ;  not  God 
Himself,  or  a  second  God,  but  His  work ;  not  a  passivity  of  God,  but  an 
act ;  not  His  self-realisation,  but  His  self-revelation.     The  beginning  of  the 
world  must  thus  be  conceived  of  as  a  transition,  not  from  one  form  of 
being  to  another,  but  from  non-being  to  being  ;  as  a  rising  into  a  continued 
existence,  in  consequence  of  an  absolute  causality. 

3.  To  the  question,  wherefore  God  thus  created,  an  answer  can  only  be 
returned  by  a  reference  to  God's  wise  and  holy  will. 8      Moved  by  nothing 
and  no  one,  except  Himself,  it  pleased  Him  to  call  forth  without  Him, 
that  life  which  He  has  in  Himself,  and  to  diffuse  it  in  the  widest  circle.    Not 
that  He  did  this  to  meet  a  want  experienced  in  Himself,  by  the  filling  up 
of  a  nameless  void.     The  perfectly  Blessed  One  had  need  of  no  Cosmos, 
since  he  possessed  in  the  Logos  the  perfect  and  eternal  object  of  His  love. 
Not  as  the  fruit  of  an  irresistible  impulse  of  nature  in  His  being,  but  of  the 
highest  freedom  on  the  part  of  God,  is   the  work  of  creation  to  be  re- 
garded and  comprehended.     Yet  this  freedom  has  nothing  arbitrary  about 
it ;  but  is  one  with  the  highest  wisdom  and  love,  and  in  so  far  itself  a 
moral  necessity.      God  creates  just  as  little   out   of  caprice,  as  out  of 
necessity ;  nor  does  He  create  in  order  to  add  thereby  something  to  His 
own  perfection,  or,  as  has  been  said,  to  be  more  fully  God,  than  He  would 
otherwise  have  been ;  but  to  reveal,  to  communicate,  to  glorify  Himself  in 
the  work  of  His  hands.     To  this  extent  the  old  Dogmatists  were  right,  in 
representing  God's  communicating  goodness  (bonitas  commnnicativa\  as  the 
motive  for  the  act  of  creation.     That  this  goodness,   however,   manifests 
itself  in  this  special  form,  has  its  ground  merely  in  the   wholly  free  moral 
self-determination  of  His  holy  counsel.4 

1  102'  rrcy.  «"•*{«",  KarapTtfew,  ^rot/xafew,  etc. 
*  Rev.  iv.  II. 
4  Ephes.  i.  ri. 


3O2  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

4.  Out  of  what  God  has  created  all  things,  is  a  question  which  cannot 
be  entered  upon  without  a  lively  sense  of  the  limited  character  of  human 
thought.  The  answer,  "out  of  nothing,"  now  heard  even  from  the  lips  of 
childhood,  is  in  vain  sought  amongst  the  most  renowned  sages  of  antiquity. 
Where  they  exalt  God  as  the  author  of  the  world,  they  mean  thereby 
nothing  else  but  that  He  gave  to  all  that  exists  its  present  form.  Even 
Plato  could  not  entirely  free  himself  from  the  idea  of  an  eternal  matter, 
and  Aristotle  started  from  what  he  took  for  an  axiom,  that  "out  of 
nothing,  nothing  can  arise."  Christian  Gnosticism  also  placed  in  the  fore- 
ground the  eternity  of  matter ;  HerniDgenes,  towards  the  end  of  the 
second  century,  called  forth  by  this  his  view  a  formal  refutation  on  the 
part  of  Tertullian  ;5  and  when,  later,  Socinianism  made  its  appearance,  it 
held — in  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church — no  creation  out  of 
nothing,  but  one  out  of  an  already  existing  matter.  The  difficulty  arose  from 
the  fact  that  one  could  not  otherwise  think  of  God,  than  after  the  analogy 
of  a  human  artist,  who  certainly  also  can  form  and  reform  all  things 
ad  infinitum,  but  can  bring  forth  absolutely  nothing  out  of  that  which  does 
not  exist.  We  say  accordingly,  without  hesitation,  that  we  here  find  our- 
selves wholly  in  the  domain  of  faith;  but  at  the  same  time,  that  the  non- 
recognition  of  this  truth  revealed  to  faith,  leads  inevitably  to  absurdity. 
However  perplexing  the  thought  of  a  properly  so  called  creation  from 
nothing  may  be,  yet  it  follows  with  absolute  necessity  from  belief  in  an  abso- 
lutely almighty  Creator.  Nay,  matter  without  any  form  cannot  be  con- 
ceived of;  an  eternal  matter  must  also  be  an  independent  matter,  another 
God ;  of  which  it  would  be  hard  to  explain  why  it  ought  or  should 
need  to  yield  to  the  will  of  a  mighty  Fashioner.  In  the  Old  Testament, 
moreover,  the  conception  of  a  creation  out  of  nothing  is  here  and  there  already 
clearly  apparent  ;6  and  in  its  Apocryphas7  we  hear  the  heroic  mother  of  seven 
sons  cry  to  her  dying  child,  "  Consider  that  God  made  all  things  of  things  that 
were  not"  (<M;  °Slc  6vTUV ;  Vulg.,  ex  nihilo).  An  echo  of  this  tone  we  find  in 
the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament ; 8  and  the  Christian  Church  stands 
thus  with  its  confession  upon  Scriptural,  but  at  the  same  time  upon  truly 
philosophic  ground.  By  this  Niliil  is  naturally  intended  no  formless 
matter,  such  as  even  the  Platonic  philosophy  places  side  by  side  with  the 
Godhead,  a  0\?j  6/uo/><£os ;  but  thereby  is  precisely  indicated  the  absence 
of  all  matter,  independent  of  the  creative  power,  by  which  alone  it 
could  originate.  We  have  here  to  do  with  the  truth  that  God  is  the 
independent  cause,  not  simply  of  the  present  form,  but  also  of  the  first 
material  of  the  world,  conceived  of  in  its  most  original  form  of  existence. 
To  such  an  extent  we  may  distinguish  between  a  first  or  immediate  crea- 
tive act  of  God,  and  a  second  or  mediate  one  ;  and  in  the  former  think 
of  the  material,  in  the  latter  of  the  after-form  of  that  which  was  earlier 
created.  In  the  application  of  the  well-known  proverb,  "  Out  of  nothing, 
nothing  comes,"  we  must  at  least  carefully  distinguish  between  a  limited 
material  cause  of  things,  and  an  absolute  spiritual  one  ;  between  a  growing 


*  TERTULL.,  Advers.  Hermog.  7  2  Mace.  vii.  28. 

•  Ps.  xxxiii.  6 ;  Neh.  ix.  6.  '  Rom.  iv.  1 7  ;  Heb.  xi.  3. 


THE  UNIVERSE.  303 

and  a  creating ;  and  must  ever  afresh  bring  into  the  foreground  the  belief 
in  an  Omnipotence,  which  "  calleth  those  things  which  be  not,  as  though 
they  were."  Far  indeed  from  our  seeing  in  all  this  only  an  idle  specula- 
tion, this  confession  is  one  of  great  practical  importance,  since  neither  our 
confidence  in  God  nor  our  obedience  to  Him  could  be  unlimited,  if  He 
Himself  were  even  in  the  slightest  degree  dependent  on  any  material  without 
Himself. 

5.  By  what  means  or  by  whom  did  God  create  all  things?     To  this 
question  Holy  Scripture  returns   answer,  by  directing  us  to  the  Word  of 
God's  power.  We  understand  by  this  expression  not  simply  the  impersonal 
word  of  power  or  command,9  but  think  of  the  Logos,  the  word  and  wisdom 
of  the  Father.    It  is  an  essential  element  in  the  Christian  belief  in  creation, 
that   He  whom  we  confess  as   Redeemer  was  in   His  higher  nature  the 
mediate  cause  of  the  creation.     In  some  measure  this  is  already  disclosed 
in  the  word  of  the  Lord  in  John  v.  17,  19,  20;  yet  more  distinctly  is  it 
declared  by  the   Evangelist   himself,  John  i.  3,  4 ;  by  Paul,  i  Cor.  viii.  6 ; 
Coloss.  i.   16,   17  ;10    and  in  the    Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  i.   2.     We   at 
least  think  that  these  expressions  can  be  taken  in  no  secondary  sense, 
and  feel  ourselves  just  as  little  at   liberty  to  regard  them  as  a  purely  sub- 
jective philosopheme.      Indeed,  they  are  wholly  in  harmony  with  that  which 
the  Gospel  proclaims  concerning  the  nature  of  the  Logos,  and  so  much  the 
better  do  they  explain  to  us  wherefore  no  other  than  the  Christ  is  the  centre 
of  God's  plan  of  the  world  (§  lv.),  and  the  Redeemer  of  a  race  to  which 
He  originally  stood  in  the  closest  relation.   That  which  many^a  philosopher 
dimly  conjectured,   namely,   that  God  did  not  produce  the"  world  in  an 
absolutely  immediate  manner,  but,   some  way  or  other,   mediately,  here 
presents  itself  to  us  as  invested  with  the  lustre  of  revelation,  and  exalts  so 
much  the  more  the  claim  of  the  Son  of  God  to  our  deep  and  reverential 
homage. 

6.  While  it  has  ever  been  seen,  that  the  apparently  most  simple  ques- 
tions are  at  the  same  time  the  most  profound,  this  is   certainly   the  case 
with  regard  to  that  which  now  arises  :  when  did  the   Universe   come  into 
existence  ?     Assuredly,  that  which  God  willed  from  eternity,  He  has  called 
into  being  in  a  certain  moment  of  time,  but  nothing  perhaps  is  more  diffi- 
cult than  to  conceive  of  a  period  in  which  the  All  arose  out  of  the  Nothing. 
The  doctrine  of  a  so-called  eternal   creation  has  therefore  been  defended 
in  different  ways  during  all  ages.    Not  to  speak  of  the  Manichaeans,  we  see 
this  idea  vigorously  defended  in  the  Alexandrine  School,  and  above  all  by 
Origen.     Without  regarding  matter — which  he   considered  to  be  the  seat 
of  the  Evil  One — as  an  independent  power,  he  assumed  an  eternal  creation 
of  countless   ideal  worlds  ;  n  partly    as  having  taken  place  before  this  of 
ours,  partly  as  to  be  looked  for  after  this,  since  he  could  not  conceive  of 
an   inactive  God.     Although    rejected  by  the  orthodox  Church,  this  idea 
continued  to  live  on  in  various  forms,  especially  where  the  influence  of  the 

9  Ps.  xxxiii.  6;  cxlvii.  15. 

10  Not  Ephes.  iii.  9  ;  where,  as  is  apparent  from  the  connection,  a  spiritual  creation  is 
exclusively  referred  to. 

11  De  trine.,  iv.  16. 


304  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

Platonic  philosophy  made  itself  felt.  Erigena  (Duns  Scotus)  defended  it, 
and  the  Pantheistic  Mysticism  of  the  Middle  Ages  regarded  the  whole  of 
creaturedom  as  a  sort  of  decadence  from  God.  While  the  Reformation 
confessed  with  fresh  alacrity  the  creating  of  the  universe  in  time,  and 
a  later  Scholasticism  sought  even  to  determine  the  day  and  the  hour  of 
creation,  the  newer  Theology  and  Philosophy,  on  the  other  hand,  under 
the  influence  of  Spinoza,  has  declared  itself  ever  more  distinctly  in  favour 
of  an  eternal  creation.  Kant  regarded  the  whole  alternative  as  a  cos- 
mological  antinomy,  the  solution  of  which  surpassed  the  power  of  the- 
oretical reason.  And  even  among  believing  Theologians  of  our  own  day 
we  observe  here  and  there  a  hesitation  on  this  point,  which  certainly 
pleads  for  their  modesty,  but  no  less  really  shows  the  difficulty  of  this 
question. 

Yet,  as  far  as  we  can  see,  the  idea  of  an  eternal  creation  is  not  less  self- 
contradictory  than  that  of  a  square  circle ;  for  to  create,  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  word,  is  nothing  else  than  to  bring  into  existence  that  which 
hitherto  had  no  existence.  "  No  creature  can  exist,"  as  has  been  well  said 
by  Quenstadt,  "  unless  after  previously  not  existing."  "  Nulla  creatura  csse 
potest,  nisi  post  non  esse."  By  the  theory  of  an  eternal  creation — Strauss, 
also,  has  acknowledged  this — the  idea  of  creation  is  thus,  in  fact,  destroyed; 
and  he  who  favours  this  view  would  do  better,  for  the  avoiding  of  misunder- 
standing, no  longer  to  speak  of  a  creation  at  all.  Moreover,  the  above- 
mentioned  theory  is  in  irreconcilable  conflict  as  well  with  the  Christian 
idea  of  God  as  with  the  nature  of  the  Cosmos.  It  may  be  defended, 
indeed,  from  the  dualistic  or  pantheistic  standpoint,  but  never  from  the 
supranaturalistic  theistic  one.  The  Universe  presents  itself  to  our  vision  as 
something  which  is  not  absolute,  but  relative,  contingent,  exposed  to  all 
kinds  of  variation  ;  in  a  word,  not  as  existing  from  eternity,  but  as  having 
at  one  time  begun  to  be.  That  with  the  opposite  mode  of  view,  the  doc- 
trine of  a  creation  out  of  nothing  also  disappears,  has  scarcely  need  of 
proof:  the  Nihilum  in  this  case  exists  nowhere  else  than  in  the  imagina- 
tion alone.  No  wonder,  accordingly,  that  profound  thinkers — a  Nitzsch, 
for  example — maintain  the  idea  of  a  Beginning,  however  difficult  to  compre- 
hend, as  absolutely  necessary.  The  pure  idea  of  History  is  sacrificed,  so 
soon  as  its  starting-point  must  be  relegated  to  the  list  of  fictions.  Every 
Ideological  view  of  the  world  at  once  loses  its  support,  since  the  final 
aim  (T£\OS,  terminus  ad  quern]  presupposes  a  beginning  (&pxb  terminus  a 
quo).  If  the  world  is  without  a  beginning,  it  will  also  continue  to  exist 
without  end  ;  and  what  is  thus  in  itself  eternal  and  independent,  needs 
for  its  infinite  revolutions  no  longer  a  centre  in  the  personal  and  living 
God. 

On  the  ground  of  all  this  it  must  be  maintained  that  God  was,  indeed, 
from  eternity,  God,  but  not  from  eternity  the  Creator  of  the  world.  If  it 
is  said  that  in  this  case  a  change  must  have  taken  place  in  the  Infinite,  the 
fact  is  overlooked  that  a  change  in  the  working  of  God  by  no  means  com- 
pels us  to  speak  of  a  variation  in  His  nature.  Or  must  God  then — to  speak 
after  a  human  manner — never  be  able  to  create  anything  new,  lest  thereby 
the  unchangeableness  of  His  being  should  be  brought  to  an  end?  Assuredly 
we  cannot  possibly  conceive  of  an  inactive  God ;  but  we  need  not  do 


THE   UNIVERSE. 


305 


this,  if  we  again  revert  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  plan  of  the  world, 
as  seen  in  section  Iv.  Or  does  any  one  stumble  at  the  difficulty  of  not 
being  able  to  conceive  of  a  point  in  eternity  at  which  time  has  begun? 
Augustine  has  already  expressed  this  difficulty  in  the  well-known  words,  "Nor 
could  the  ages  revolve  before  Thou  hads!;  made  the  ages  " — nee  prceterire 
potuerunt  tempora,  anicqitam  faceres  tempora  ; — but  he  afforded  at  the  same 
time  the  only  tolerable  solution,  when  he  reminds  us  that  the  world  was 
called  into  being  not  in  but  with  time — non  in  sed  cum  tempore — or,12  to 
speak  more  exactly,  time  with  the  world.  Time,  indeed,  is  the  succession 
of  moments  for  finite  things  ;  so  long  thus  as  these  latter  did  not  yet  exist, 
there  could  be  no  room  to  speak  of  the  former.  A  time  before  the  creation 
did  not  exist :  then  it  was  only  eternity.  Or  yet  better  with  Augustine — "  if 
before  heaven  and  earth  there  was  no  time,  why  is  it  asked,  '  What  wast 
Thou  then  doing  ?'  For  there  was  no  then,  when  there  was  no  time.  And 
Thcu  dost  not  in  time  precede  the  ages ;  but  Thou  art  raised  above  all  the 
past  by  the  height  of  Thine  ever-present  majesty."13 

To  bring  the  matter  into  greater  clearness  we  must  carefully  distinguish 
between  the  two  senses  of  the  word  Creation.  It  signifies,  namely,  as  well 
the  proper  creative  act  of  God  as  the  whole  of  created  objects  themselves 
which  are  called  forth  by  this  act.  In  the  former  case  we  can  say  that  the 
creation  is  an  eternal  act ;  because  the  Creator  Himself  is,  in  His  living 
and  working,  exalted  above  all  time.  In  the  latter  case  we  must  assume 
that  that  which  is  created,  at  some  time— when,  is  for  us  now  a  matter  of 
indifference — received  a  beginning;  since  it  could  not  otherwise  be  spoken 
of  as  treated.  The  world  began  to  be  so  soon  as  this  was  willed  by  God, 
who  placed  it  in  time,  and  for  it — at  its  birth  (wording) — gave  to  time  a 
beginning.  On  this  account  time  has  existed  precisely  as  long  as  the  world, 
and  the  world  precisely  as  long  as  time.  And  time  ?  This  is  God's  secret ; 
but  enough — natural  science  proclaims  it,  as  well  as  Holy  Scripture — the 
realm  of  Creation  at  some  time  received  a  beginning,  precisely  because  it 
is  essentially  distinguished  from  the  eternal  Creator.  He  who  refuses  to 
accept  this  position,  would  do  better  to  read  simply  Cosmos  in  place  of  the 
word  Logos,  in  John  i.  i  ;  and  breaks  in  principle  both  with  the  Christian 
idea  of  God  and  the  Christian  belief  in  revelation. 

7.  From  the  standpoint  of  Christian  belief  in  creation,  must  thus  be 
definitely  rejected,  as  being  in  irreconcilable  conflict  with  its  utterance  : — 
(a.)  Materialism,  which  recognises  the  existence  of  nothing  but  matter,  and 
explains  all  things  as  far  as  possible  from  the  law  of  material  changes.  From 
this  point  of  view  the  whole  problem  of  creation  does  not,  properly  speaking, 
exist,  since  matter  is  regarded  as  eternal ;  but  therewith  is  also  the  hope  of 
a  solution  of  the  world-problem  for  ever  lost.  For  the  power  which  domi- 
nates matter  cannot  possibly  be  explained  from  the  existence  of  matter 
alone  ;  and,  with  this  power,  life  itself  remains  an  absolutely  unfathomable 
mystery.  Above  all,  since  the  science  of  our  age  has,  by  the  labours  of  a 

12  De  Civ.  Dei,  xi.  6. 

11  Si  ante  ccelum  et  terras  nullum  erat  tempus,  cur  qtuzritur,  quid  tune  faciebas  ?  Non 
enim  erat  TUNC,  ubi  non  ei-at  tempits.  Aec  Tu  tempore  tempora  pracedis,  sed  pracedis 
omnia  prcEterita  celsitudine  semper  pmsentis  majestatis. 

X 


306  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

Pasteur  and  others,  admirably  demonstrated  the  untenableness  of  the 
theory  of  the  generatio  cequivoca,  while  the  absolute  impossibility  of  ex- 
plaining organic  life  as  brought  forth  by  inorganic  nutter  is  ever  more  dis- 
tinctly recognised,  it  is  rendered  apparent  that  Materialism  gives  us,  in 
place  of  the  despised  mystery,  simply  an  absurdity. — N"ot  less  is  this  the 
case  with 

(b.}  Hylozoism,  which  certainly  acknowledges  a  formative  principle  of  the 
world,  but  a  principle  to  be  sought  exclusively  in  matter  itself.  God,  so 
far  as  He  can  here  be  spoken  of,  is  only  the  universal  life,  the  world-soul, 
which  pervades  the  Cosmos,  as  our  soul  the  body.  As  well  the  history 
of  ancient  as  of  modern  philosophy  affords  distinguished  exponents  of  this 
view ;  and  certainly  from  this  standpoint  one  need  trouble  himself  just  as 
little  about  a  creation  from  nothing  as  about  a  beginning  of  things,  properly 
so  called.  But  this  seeming  advantage,  how  dearly  is  it  purchased,  and 
how  little  gain  does  it  bring  with  it !  The  entire  result  of  this  tendency  is 
to  make  of  God  a  vain  name,  and  of  the  world  nothing  but  a  riddle  ;  whilst 
itself,  when  it  does  not  end  in  Pantheism,  must  inevitably  run  into  Atheism. 
If  you  conceive,  for  a  moment,  the  absence  of  matter.  God  Himself  has 
then  disappeared  in  vapour  and  mist !  If  the  soul  of  the  world  is  an 
unconscious  one,  how  is  the  order  and  design  in  creation  to  be  explained  ? 
If  it  is  a  conscious  one,  wherefore  not,  at  the  same  time,  a  free  agent  ? — 
and  if  a  free  agent,  how  does  it  become  and  remain  so  inseparably  bound 
to  its  gigantic  material  raiment  ? 

(c.)  The  Emanation-theory  certainly  does  not  suffer  from  the  same  diffi- 
culties, but  on  its  side  calls  forth  wholly  different  ones.  According  to  this 
theory,  Creation  has  flowed  forth  from  God,  as  a  stream  from  a  fountain,  a 
ray  of  light  from  the  sun's  disc ;  and  to  such  an  extent  accordingly  finds  its 
ultimate  cause  of  life  in  Him.  Only,  unfortunately,  such  a  creation  is  to  be 
regarded  as  anything  but  the  free  act  of  the  highest  love  !  Far,  indeed, 
from  being  here  in  the  highest  degree  active,  the  Godhead  thus  becomes 
purely  passive,  and  the  Cosmos,  in  the  end,  a  part  of  the  totality  of  God's 
own  life.  How  can  the  Eternal  Being  be  subject  to  such  an  outflowing, 
without  His  nature  admitting  of  diminution  or  exhaustion  ?  Has  not  the 
part  the  same  properties  as  the  whole?  And  is  God  then  also  material, 
mutable,  imperfect,  as  the  visible  world?  What  room  is  there  yet  left, 
in  the  case  of  an  unconscious  emanation,  to  speak  of  a  proper  design  in 
creation  ?  And  what  explanation  is  to  be  given  of  the  methodical  order,  the 
gradual  rise  in  the  scale  of  being,  the  infinite  diversity,  which  we  discover 
in  the  work  of  creation?  For  the  third  time — no  answer. 

(d.)  But  also  the  Evolution  or  Transmutation  theory  of  Darwin  and  his 
school,  however  great  the  applause  with  which  it  has  been  received  in  our 
days,  can  scarcely  expect  to  hold  its  ground  against  the  Christian  belief  as 
to  the  creation.  For  assuredly  the  great  question  is  not  here  sufficiently 
answered,  but  only  pushed  infinitely  far  back.  However  many  million 
years  we  may  allow  its  advocates  to  explain  the  beginning  and  the  orderly 
course  of  the  great  process  of  development,  the  earliest  material  of  the 
universe  remains  equally  incomprehensible,  as  the  power  which  gave  it  the 
first  impulse  to  an  everlasting  movement.  The  gulf  between  the  animate 
and  the  inanimate,  between  the  irrational  and  the  rational,  continues  to 


THE   UNIVERSE.  307 

yawn,  in  spite  of  every  attempt  which  the  Development-hypothesis  has 
made  to  fill  it  up.  Under  the  watchword  of  progress  it  leads  us  back — as 
far  as  concerns  the  great  principle — to  the  standpoint  of  the  earliest  natuial 
philosophy,  long  before  Socrates  and  Plato.  Even  with  the  most  compre- 
hensive scientific  knowledge,  the  attempt  to  solve  the  enigma — though  it 
should  so  happen  that  every  key  was  tried,  except  the  only  fitting  one — 
must  inevitably  lead  to  absurdity.  "  In  his  account  of  creation,  Moses  is 
in  advance  oj all  the  efforts  of  ancient  and  modern  philosophy"  (Lange). 

8.  Duly  maintained,  the  Christian  belief  in  God  as  the  Almighty  Creator 
of  all  things  is  of  an  undeniable  theoretical  and  practical  importance,  which 
cannot  be  overlooked.  Even  though  we  should  leave  unnoticed  all  which 
has  relation  to  the  creation  of  this  earth  in  particular,  its  high  degree  of 
significance  is  apparent  upon  a  moment's  reflection. — The  perfection  of 
God  is  raised  above  all  doubt,  where  it  appears  that  He  is  not  only  the 
Fashioner  of  an  eternal  matter,  but  Creator  of  the  material  of  the  world 
itself:  Lord,  therefore,  in  the  most  absolute  sense  of  the  word.  TJie 
claim  of  Religion  can  no  longer  be  disputed,  so  soon  as  it  must  be  acknow- 
ledged that  there  exists  an  Almighty  Creator,  upon  whom  everything  is 
absolutely  dependent,  and  to  the  glorification  of  whom  every  creature  is 
under  obligation,  as  '•'•par  droit  divin."  If  it  appears,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  creation  is  simply  the  result  of  a  blind  process  of  nature,  Religion  has 
some  value  as  an  aspiration,  but  an  aspiration  to  which  there  is  nothing 
real  beyond  the  nature  of  man  himself  to  correspond.  The  existence  of  a 
rci'datwn  must  also  be  admitted  by  him  who  truly  confesses  God  as  the 
Almighty  Creator.  In  point  of  fact  He  has  already  revealed  Himself  in 
the  work  of  His  hands  ;  and  to  Him  who  did  this,  neither  the  right  nor  the 
power  can  be  disputed  of  making  Himself  yet  further  known  by  more  par- 
ticular acts  of  revelation.  Yea,  the  possibility  of  miracles  is  established,  so 
soon  as  the  Christian  Theistic  belief  in  creation  is  confirmed  on  solid 
grounds.  Whatever  particular  account  of  miracles  may  appear  critically 
untenable,  thus  much  is  certain,  that  the  beginning  of  all  things  remains 
absolutely  inexplicable  without  an  actual  miracle  of  creative  Omnipotence. 
"  Le  miracle  existe,  il  est  a  la  premiere  page  de  la  Bible"  (Poulain).  If  a 
miracle  has  once  taken  place,  with  what  right  shall  one  speak  of  a  miracle 
as  henceforth  impossible,  so  long  at  least  as  we  believe  in  a  living  God,  an 
almighty  Creator  ?  Thus  the  dogma  of  the  creation  is  one  of  the  foundation- 
stones  upon  which  the  edifice  of  the  whole  Christian  doctrine  of  faith  is 
built  up  ;  and  we  cannot  wonder  that  the  maintenance  of  that  faith  against 
the  furious  attacks  of  Naturalism  is  in  our  time  attempted  on  different  sides 
with  increased  zeal.  Provided,  however — with  the  clear  recognition  of  the 
fact  that  here,  if  anywhere,  we  find  ourselves  in  the  domain  of  faith — it 
n<  ver  be  overlooked  that  we  have  to  do  with  no  truth  of  speculation  alone, 
but  one  above  all  of  practice.  If,  according  to  Scripture,  all  created  things 
are  A?  God,1*  notably  must  then  also  the  treatment  of  the  doctrine  of  creation 
be  conducted  with  a  view  to  His  glory.  This  will  be  the  better  effected,  in 
proportion  as  the  science  of  faith  the  more  humbly  acknowledges  the 
limits  which  have  been  imposed  upon  it  once  for  all  in  this  mysterious 

14  Rom.  xi.  36. 

X   2 


308  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

domain  ;  and,  above  all,  directs  its  eye  to  the  glorious  harmony  which  the 
book  of  Nature  reveals  on  so  many  a  page  with  the  book  of  Saving  Revela- 
tion. The  more  creation  is  viewed  as  the  original  revelation  of  God's 
g'orious  perfections,  the  more  reverence,  confidence,  and  gratitude  is 
awakened  and  cherished  in  its  sanctuary.  To  this  end,  in  the  treatment  of 
the  doctrine  of  creation  for  the  Christian  community,  all  abstract  specu- 
lative questions  should  be  as  far  as  possible  avoided ;  creation  should  be 
viewed,  not  simply  in  the  light  of  science,  which,  however  valuable,  is  yet 
ever  fallible ;  but  especially  in  the  light  of  Holy  Scripture  ;  and,  finally, 
through  nature  also,  the  congregation  should  be  led  up  to  Him  who  is  the 
great  centre  alike  of  Creation  and  of  Regeneration. 

Compare  the  article  Schb'pfung,  in  Herzog's  J?.  E.,  xiii.  and  xx.,  with  the  literature 
there  mentioned  ;  P.  HOFSTEDE  DE  GROOT,  Theol.  Nat.,  Editio  40.  (1861),  p.  137,  sqq.; 
N.  POULAIN,  Reponse  aux  trois  Ltttres  de  M.  Reville  (1864),  pp.  10 — 35  ;  D.  CHANTEPIE 
DE  LA  SAUSSAYE,  Het  Begin.  Leerr.,  over  Gen.  i.  I  (1866).  With  regard  to  the 
Development-hypothesis,  and  that  which  is  connected  therewith,  different  interesting 
articles  in  the  Beweis  des  Glaubens  (1866 — 1868)  ;  and,  further,  that  which  is  related  and 
discussed  in  §  Iviii.,  in  the  further  treatment  of  the  creation  of  our  earth.  On  the  question  of 
the  Eternal  Creation,  F.  A.  STENTRUP,  Das  Dogma  von  der  zeitl.  Welt-Schopfung, 
gegenilber  der  natiirl.  Erkenntniss  (1870). 


POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Extent  and  importance  of  the  examination  as  to  the  works  of  God. — To  what  extent 
did  the  pre-Christian  philosophy  approximate  to  a  pure  conception  of  the  Creation  of  the 
world  ? — History  of  the  article  of  Creation  in  the  Christian  Church. — Further  elucidation 
of  the  doctrine  of  creationy/ww  nothing. — How  are  we,  in  the  light  of  Holy  Scripture,  to 
conceive  of  the  proper  relation  of  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  work  of  Creation  ? — 
How  best  to  reply  to  the  question  frequently  repeated,  what  God  was  doing  before  He 
created  the  world  ? — To  what  extent  can  we  say  that  the  world  has  always  existed  ? — The 
conflict  between  Naturalism  and  Supranaturalism  in  the  domain  of  the  doctrine  of  Crea- 
tion.— Further  discussion  of  the  Development-hypothesis.  — Degree,  basis,  and  fruits  of 
Christian  certainty  in  this  respect 


SECTION  LVII. — THE  WORLD  OF  SPIRITS. 

As  the  whole  of  the  material  world,  so  has  the  world  of  spirits 
in  particular  the  ground  of  its  existence  in  God,  the  Father  of 
spirits.  The  crown  of  the  creation  can  be  no  other  than  personal 
beings  ;  but  the  assertion  that  no  one  in  their  ranks  stands  higher 
than  man  is  wanting  in  all  semblance  of  proof.  Rather  does 
reason  itself  suggest  the  existence  of  higher  spirits,  and  that  which 
Holy  Scripture  teaches  us  concerning  the  Angels  renders  more 


THE  WORLD  OF  SPIRITS.  309 

clear  our  vision  of  the  glory  of  God  and  His  Kingdom.  In  this 
respect  the  sacred  Angelology  has  not  merely  an  aesthetic,  but  also 
a  deeply  religious  significance  ;  and  justly  maintains  its  place  in 
the  Christian  system  of  thought,  although  it  must  be  acknowledged 
that,  as  regards  many  particulars,  the  number  of  unanswered  ques- 
tions far  surpasses  that  of  the  rightly  answered  ones. 

1.  From  the  Universe,  considered  in  all  its  extent  as  the  work  of  God, 
our  eye  now  turns  to  its  different  parts,  this  visible  world  and  the  invisible 
one  ;  the  latter  first,  because  —  its  existence  once  presupposed  —  it  unques- 
tionably stands  higher  than  the  earth  which  we  inhabit,  and  of  which  the 
origin  will  later  occupy  us.     Different  views  have  always  been  entertained 
as  to  the  place  which  Angelology  ought  to  take  in  the  Christian  system  of 
doctrine.     For  us  its  treatment  is  more  appropriate,  not  in  connection  with 
the  doctrine  of  Providence,  but  as  early  as  that  of  Creation  ;  with  the 
understanding,  however,  that  we  here  speak  of  Angels  in  general,  without 
yet  entering  on  the  obscure  domain  of  Satanology  and  Dsernonology,  which 
must  be  treated  of  hereafter,  in  the  investigation  as  to  Hamartology. 

2.  That  in  reality  Holy  Scripture  partly  presupposes,  partly  distinctly 
teaches,  the  existence  of  angels  —  i.e.,  of  spiritual  beings  higher  than  men  — 
no  impartial  reader  will  deny.     The  time  is  past  when  it  was  sought  by  all 
kinds  of  exegetical  and  critical  artifices  to  clear  the  sacred  soil  of  these 
enigmatical  beings  ;  either  by  making  of  them  purely  human  ambassadors, 
informers,  fair  youths,  etc.,  or  by  seeing  in  them  nothing  but  symbols  of 
some  unknown  power.    The  sacred  writers  manifestly  thought  of  something 
else,  when  they  made  repeated  mention  of  angels.1       Not  to  speak  here  of 
Cherubim  and  Seraphim  —  as  it  would  seem  distinct  from  the  spirits  just 
named  —  nor  of  the  Angel  of  (God's)  presence,  in  whom  was  the  name  of 
Jahveh,2  we  see  repeatedly,  in  earlier  and  later  periods  of  the  history  of 
Revelation,  ministering  spirits  from  heaven  appearing  for  the  guidance,  pro- 
tection, or  consolation  of  the  pious,  or  for  the  punishment  of  the  ungodly. 
They  are  represented  as  composing  a  sort  of  heavenly  court,  unceasingly 
active  in  glorifying  God's  name  and  accomplishing  His  will.     Although  not 
of  spotless  purity  in  the  sight  of  the  Holy  One,3  they  are,  however,  re- 
garded as  far  superior  to  man  in  moral  excellencv,  as  well  as  in  wisdom  and 
power.    Especially  in  and  after  the  Babylonian  captivity  we  find  the  Angel- 
ology in  many  respects  developed.     Guardian  angels,  mentioned  by  name, 
appear  in  Daniel  and  Zechariah  on  behalf  of  different  lands  and  persons  ;  ana 
soon  after,  in  the  Apocrypha  of  the  Old  Testament,  (in  the  book  of  Tobit 
for  instance,)  they  are  even  more  fully  described.      In  the  days  of  the 
New  Testament  we  see  their   existence  generally  acknowledged   by  the 
Jewish  people,  and  particularly  by  the  Pharisees  ;  denied  by  the  Sadducees;  4 


\fiTovpyiKa,  etc. 

*  Exod.  xxiii.  21. 

*  Job  xv.  15. 

4  Acts  xxiii.  8. 


3IO  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

maintained  and  brought  constantly  into  the  foreground  by  the  Lord  and  His 
Apostles,  without  distinction.  Appearances  of  angels  we  find  related  in 
the  history  of  the  birth  of  John  and  of  Jesus,  in  the  desert  of  the  Temptation 
and  in  Gethsemane,  in  connection  with  the  Resurrection  and  Ascension  of 
Christ,  and  at  remarkable  moments  in  the  life  of  His  Apostles.8  Especially 
do  we  see  the  Lord  frequently,  and  with  manifest  satisfaction,  dwelling  on 
the  subject  of  these  friendly  and  radiant  forms,  and  directing  His  disciples 
thereto.  Angels  are,  according  to  His  teaching,  personal,  immaterial,  sinless, 
immortal  beings,6  countless  in  number ; 7  and  placed  in  the  closest  rela- 
tion, not  simply  to  the  individual  man,8  but  also  to  that  whole  kingdom, 
at  the  future  revelation  and  triumph  of  which  they  are  called  to  fulfil  a 
highly  important  task.9  Paul  also  has  not  a  little  that  is  remarkable  to 
say  of  them ; 10  and  while  Peter  also  speaks  of  them  as  subjects  of  the 
glorified  Christ,11  they  appear  again  repeatedly  in  the  Apocalypse  before 
the  eye  of  the  ecstatic  John.  Only  a  very  few  books  of  the  Bible — such  as 
Nehemiah,  Esther,  the  Epistles  of  John  and  James — are  entirely  silent  with 
regard  to  the  angels ;  but,  although  for  the  rest  this  idea  is  much  more 
strongly  coloured  and  developed  in  some  than  in  others,  it  cannot  be 
proved  that  the  various  writers  differ  from  each  other  in  principle  on  this 
question,  so  far  as  the  main  underlying  thought  is  concerned. 

3.  The  question,  what  value  is  to  be  attached  to  this  Biblical  Angelology? 
has  been  always  differently  answered.  As  opposed  to  the  scriptural  doc- 
trine— which  is  also  acknowledged  and  held  in  esteem  by  the  Christian 
Church  in  general,  and  the  Reformed  Church  in  particular12 — many  a  one 
in  earlier  and  later  times  has  placed  himself  at  the  standpoint  of  a  whole  or  half 
rationalistic  denial.  Especially  in  and  after  the  seventeenth  century,  have 
Deism,  Naturalism,  and  Pantheism  assailed  the  Biblical  Angelology  with 
great  force  of  weapons ;  and  the  older  Supranaturalism  defended  the  same 
out  of  reverence  for  the  Bible,  but  within  the  most  modest  proportions,  and 
without — as  it  would  seem — properly  knowing  what  to  do  with  these  myste- 
rious beings.  Schleiermacher  named  the  whole  subject  problematical  and 
indifferent ;  the  Groningen  school  admitted  the  existence  of  angels,  while, 
w'th  but  little  consistency  on  this  point,  denying  that  of  devils  ;  for  the 
Modern  conception,  both  the  one  and  the  other  have  become  an  offence 
and  foolishness.  Here,  if  anywhere,  one  moves  in  what  is,  according  to  the 
opinion  of  many,  the  region  of  conscious  or  unconscious  fiction.  Angelology 
is  from  this  standpoint  nothing  more  than  the  fruit  of  a  thoroughly  antiquated 
Cosmology,  equivalent  to  the  mythology  of  religion. 

Against  this  opposition,  however,  it  may  be  now — setting  aside  particular 
points — in  general  remarked  that  the  belief  in  a  world  of  spirits  is  in 
itself  by  no  means  unreasonable;  but  even  without  taking  the  Bible  into 

Acts  v.  19  ;  viii.  26  ;  x.  3  ;  xii.  7  ;  xxvii.  23. 

Matt.  xxii.  30,  and  similar  places. 

Matt,  xx vi.  53. 

Matt,  xviii.  10 ;  Luke  xv.  IO;  xvi.  22. 

Matt.  xiii.  39  ;  xxv.  31. 

10  See.  for  instance,  I  Cor.  vi.  3  ;  xi.  10 ;  Gal.  iii.  19 ;  Ephes.  UL  IO. 

11  I  Pet.  iii.  22. 

M  Netherlands  Confession,  Art.  xii. 


THE  WORLD  OF   SPIRITS.  311 

account,  is  rather  to  be  assumed.  The  amazing  extent  of  the  Universe 
leads  us  involuntarily  to  the  supposition  that  it  contains  an  infinite 
diversity,  as  of  irrational,  so  also  of  rational  inhabitants.  The  gradual 
ascent  which  we  discover  in  the  order  and  rank  of  being,  renders  it 
probable  that  there  exist,  not  only  beneath,  but  also  above  man,  different 
links  in  this  chain.  The  naturalness  of  this  supposition  is  apparent  ircm 
this  fact — as  well  as  others — that  we  n  eet  with  ideas  amongst  the  most 
different  nations  and  forms  of  religion,  which  point  to  a  belief  in  a  world 
of  spirits,  in  an  order  of  heroes  and  demigods  (such  for  insiance  as  the 
Genii  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  the  Elves  in  the  Edda,  the  Dews  of 
Parseeism,  etc.)  ;  so  that  systematic  denial  on  this  point  says  more  perhaps 
for  the  acuteness  than  for  the  profoundness  of  its  numerous  advocates. 
He  who  knows  not  how  to  make  room  for  any  Angelology  in  his  doctrine 
of  faith,  at  least  passes  beyond  the  bounds  of  his  competency,  when  with 
lofty  tone  he  utters  the  words  absurd  and  impossible.  It  were  pride  itself 
to  assert  that  God  could  cieate  nothing  higher  in  the  domain  oi  spirits 
than — man.  In  the  whole  work  of  creation  we  see  a  manifest  aspiiation 
towards  Personality,  that  free  and  self-c  cnscious  life  which  sets  the  crown 
upon  the  wonders  of  creation.  The  mineial,  vegetable,  and  animal 
kingdom  finds  repose,  as  it  were,  and  culminates  in  Man,  the  representative 
of  God  here  below.  But  with  what  right  shall  this  latter  look  up  to 
heaven,  and  say,  "Between  Thee  and  me  can  no  higher  being  exist"? 

Besides,  this  radical  denial  is  in  conflict  with  well-supported  and  important 
facts.  In  whatever  way  many  an  Old  Testament  account  of  Angelophany 
may  be  judged  of,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  Jesus  Himself  believed  in  the 
existence  of  angels,  and  brought  that  existence  into  direct  connection 
with  the  main  contents  of  His  Gospel.  There  is  no  single  reason  for  here 
speaking  of  an  accommodation  to  that  which  was  in  His  judgment  a  blame- 
worthy error  :  not  only  to  the  Pharisees,  but  also  to  the  Sadducees,13  dees 
He  speak  of  them  ;  not  merely  in  the  parable,  but  also  in  its  explana- 
tion ;u  and  even  with  death  immediately  before  Him,  He  sees  their 
legions  invisibly  drawn  up  for  His  heip.15  Who  can  here  think  either  of 
an  illusion  or  of  an  immoral  accommodation  of  Himself  to  a  narrow 
popular  belief?  Equally  impossible  is  it  to  explain  from  this  latter  the 
accounts  of  the  appearing  of  angels  in  the  history  of  the  Lord  and  His 
first  witnesses.  Belonging  to  a  purely  historic  period,  they  can  just  as 
little  be  conceived  of  as  taking  place  in  a  merely  natural  way,  as  they  can  be 
explained  by  the  acceptance  of  a  mythical  theory ;  and  they  are,  moreover, 
at  least  now  and  then — Acts  xii.  7,  for  example — of  such  a  nature  that,  if 
miracle  is  here  to  be  given  up,  we  can  only  see  therein  a  deliberate  and 
calculated  act  of  deception.  But  this  latter  is  in  conflict  with  the  moral 
impression  which  these  accounts  produce,  and  is  for  other  reasons  least  of 
all  necessary. 

Unquestionably,  in  the  last  place,  the  objections  brought  from  the 
negative  standpoint  against  the  doctrine  of  Angels,  are  by  no  means  to  be 
regarded  as  absolutely  insuperable.  The  impossibility  of  their  existence 
or  appearing  is  no  doubt  asserted,  but  as  yet  absolutely  unproved.  Here, 

13  Matt.  xxii.  29,  30.  "  Matt.  xiii.  39.  u  Matt.  xxvi.  53. 


312  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

if  anywhere,  the  familiar  words  of  the  poet  have  their  application  :  "  There 
are  more  things  in  heaven  and  earth  than  are  dreamt   of  in  our   philo- 
sophy."   The  empirical  difficulty  derived  from  the  fact  that  no  Angel-appear- 
ances ever  take  place  now,  is — even  if  we  unreservedly  admit  the  truth  of 
this  assertion — only  then  of  preponderating  force,  when  the  right  has  been 
established  to  judge  of  the  experience  of  earlier  ages  exclusively  by  the 
standard  of  the  experience  of  the  present  day.     There  is  at  least  just  as 
little  reason  for  entirely  denying  to  man  any  organ  for  the  reception  of 
such  revelation,  as  for  declaring  this  belief  mere  superstition,  because  it 
has,  undoubtedly,  often  and  often  served  to  foster  a  miserable  superstition. 
— The  historic  objection,  that  the  whole  of  this  belief,  originating  from 
the  earliest   period  of   the  human  race,  is  only   a  surviving   remnant    of 
Polytheism,  is  just  as  much  wanting  in  every  semblance  of  proof  as  the 
opposite  one,  that  we  owe  it  to  the  influence  of  foreign  ideas  upon  those  of 
the  later  Jews.     The    later  more    developed  form  of  Jewish  Angelology 
may  perhaps  in  part  be  explained  thereby ;  but  long  before  the  Babylonian 
captivity  the  substance  of  this  doctrine  lived  in  the  consciousness  of  the 
wisest  and  most  devout  in  Israel,  and  continued  to  live  even  when  in 
after  ages  this  form  of  revelation  became  more  and  more  rare. — Finally, 
as  far   as  the  inner  value  of  this  belief  itself  is  concerned,    it  is  by  no 
means  of  such  subordinate  importance   as  a  superficial  criticism  would 
wish  to  assert.     Precisely  the  barren  Deistic  view,  which  separates  God 
and  His  angels  from  the  world,  has  called  forth  the  loud  and  oft-repeated 
complaint  of  a    "God-denuded    Nature"  (die    entgbtterte   Natur}.     That 
God  needs  no  Angels  in  order  to  execute  His  counsel,  must  assuredly 
be  admitted :  but  from  this  it  does  not  yet  absolutely  follow  that,  to  the 
accomplishment  of  this  end,  He  cannot  and  may  not — in  addition  to  other 
means — also  make  use  of  Angels. — The  great  difficulty,  it  must  be  con- 
fessed, lies  in  the  Modern  view  of  the  world,  in  which  literally  no  place  is 
left  open  for  these  friendly  celestial  spirits.     "  Since,"  says  Strauss,  "  the 
starry  heavens  are  no  longer  a  layer  spread  above  and  around  the  earth, 
and  forming  the  boundary  between  the  physical  and  metaphysical  world  ; 
there  has  been  taken  from  us,  by  the  Copernican  system,  the  place  where 
Jewish  and  Christian  antiquity  imagined  the  throne   of  God  surrounded 
by  Angels."      In    opposition  to  this  assertion,  it  must  be  observed  that 
there  are  many  dwellings  in  the  great  Father's  house,  and  that  a  more 
cautious  judgment  becomes  us,  in  proportion  as  the  telescope  has  dis- 
closed to  us  more  of  the  boundless  extent  of  the  heavens.     If  it  be  said, 
that  the  presumable  inhabitants  of  higher  worlds  are  still  not  the  Angels  of 
the  Bible,  this  is  relatively  true ;  but  at  the  same  time  it  is  forgotten  that 
here  the  question  is  not  so  n  uch  as  to  the  dwelling-place,  as  it  is  as  to  the 
existence  and  service,  of  the  Angels.     Angelology  attaches  itself  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  as  Daemonology  to  that  of  Sin  ;  but  with 
natural  science  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  has  directly  to  do.     Astro- 
nomy, as  such,  knows  absolutely  nothing  of  the  spiritual  life  in  the  Universe, 
to  give  to  it  the  right  of  confirming  or  denying  on  this  point     He  who 
combats  the  doctrine  of  Angels  on  grounds  derived  from  Astronomy,  must 
also — in  order  to  be  consistent — say  farewell  to  all  thought  of  a  heaven, 
a  personal  God,  a  particular  Revelation.      The  systematic  combating  of 


THE  WORLD  OF   SPIRITS.  313 

Angelology  is  usually  determined  by  a  Deistic  or  Pantheistic  tendency,  and 
easily  leads  to  an  entire  denial  of  all  spirit  in  nature  and  humanity,  in  other 
words,  to  absolute  Materialism. 

4.  Notwithstanding  all  this,  however,  we  need  scarcely  say,  the  fantastic 
embellishment  of  this  doctrine,  of  which,  on  the  other  hand,  the  history  of  the 
Christian  Church — above  all,  of  the  Romish  Church — affords  us  so  many 
examples,  is  yet  far  from  being  justified.     There  is  no  part  of  Christian  doc- 
trine, after  that  of  Eschatology,  on  which  the  glowing  imagination  has  so  early 
and  so  eagerly  seized,  as  on  this.      What  a  wide  difference  between  the 
Biblical  sobriety  of  representation,  and  the  wild  creations  of  Gnosticism,  in 
this  mysterious  domain  !      When  the  doctrine  of  emanations  and  of  aeons 
regards   the  Angels  as  ethereal  creatures,  orthodoxy  soon  lays  increased 
stress  upon  their  corporeity  ;  of  guardian  Angels,  too,  much  more  is  heard 16 
than  in  the  Apostolic  age.      On  the  authority  of  Ambrose  and  others, 
the  veneration  of  Angels  is  recommended;   from  the  time  of  Constantine, 
churches  are  dedicated  to  them  by  emperors  and  bishops  ;  and  Pseudo- 
Dionysius,  in  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century,  is  able  to,  give  us  the 
account  of  a  whole  heavenly  hierarchy,  divided   into  three  classes  and 
nine  orders.     The  day  of  their  creation,  the  freedom  of  their  will,  the 
possibility  of  their  fall,  the  peculiarity  of  their  knowledge  even — in  distinc- 
tion from  that  of  men,  of  a  purely  a  priori  nature — is  all  described  by  the 
Scholastics  with  hair-splitting  exactness.     It  is  true  that  in   this  domain, 
also,  the  Reformers  set  themselves  against  error  and  superstition ;    and 
Calvin  gave  up  the  idea  of  guardian  angels,  which  had  been  still  retained 
by  Luther.     But  very  soon  Scholasticism  again  began  to  make  itself  felt 
with  fresh  vigour;   the  Swiss  Theologian,  J.  H.  Heidegger  (f  1698),  was 
still  able  to  fill  twenty  folio  pages  with  a  catalogue  (breviarium]  of  Angels. 
In  what  a  revolutionary  manner  the  fancy  of  Swedenborg  (t  1772)  con- 
structed a  world  of  spirits,  and  what  strange  ideas  the  newer  Theosophy 
has   given   birth  to,   in  this  respect  also,   cannot  here  be  analysed.     In 
presence   of  these   eccentricities,  the  Romish  Church  merits  comparative 
praise,    in  that  it   has  at  least    retained    the  standpoint    of  ear'ier  ages. 
Pity,  however,  that  its  absolutely  unscriptural  interpretation  and  embellish- 
ment of  many  particular  points  has  not  merely  contributed  to  the  growth 
of  superstition,  but  in  great  part  called  forth  and  given  colour  to  that 
rationalistic  and  naturalistic  reaction  which  we  have  before  characterised, 
and  of  which — so  far  as  appears  at  present — the  end  cannot  be  antici- 
pated. 

5.  The  literal-biblical  conception  has  unquestionably,  as  opposed  to  the 
two   extremes,  essential  right  on  its   side ;    but  yet  the  watchword  :    ad 
biblicam  siinplicitatem,  by  no  means  raises  us  above  all  difficulties.     Even 
with  the  most  unreserved  admission  of  the  credibility  of  the  narratives  in 
the  sacred  history,  one  must  admit  that  the  appearances  of  Angels  present 
a  too  fleeting,   sporadic,   mysterious   character,  for   us   to   build   definite 
theories    upon   them.     In    many  a   word   of  Scripture,    also,    the   poetic 
character  is  not  to  be  denied;17   others,  which  afford  a  hint  concerning 

16  Hermes,  for  example  ;  Clemens  Alexandrinus  ;  Origen. 

17  E.g.,  Ps.  xxxiv.  7. 


314  CHRISTIAN    DOGMATICS. 

Angels,  are  clothed  in  the  transparent  raiment  of  a  parable.18  Then  again 
we  hear  the.  voice  of  the  popular  belief,19  and  it  becomes  the  question  what 
value  we  are  to  attach  thereto  ?  The  same  is  the  case  with  some  tradi- 
tions,20 not  to  speak  of  passages  of  Scripture  which — like  Gen.  vi.  2  ; 
i  Cor.  vi.  3;  xi.  10 — are  the  known  cruces  interprdum.  In  general  it 
surely  will  not  be  the  same  thing,  whether  we  receive  an  utterance  of  our 
Lord,  or,  e.g.,  of  one  of  the  friends  of  Job,  touching  the  world  of  spirits. 
What  is  apprehended  in  regard  thereto  in  a  visionary  condition,  differs  in 
the  case  of  one  and  another;  and  it  is  not  possible  to  blend  together  the 
aggregate  of  that  which  appears  in  Holy  Scripture  concerning  Angels,  into 
one  well-compacted  whole.  In  any  case,  sifting  (K/>«TK)  is  necessary,  before 
one  step  farther  can  be  taken  here. 

6.  Thus,  in  this  case  also,  the  bJieving-critical  conception  is  the  only 
one  which  can  lead  to  wished-for  results.       Believing,  inasmuch  as  here 
also  it  allows  that  weight  and  authority  to    the   word    of  revelation   in 
Christ,  which  it  must  have  in  the  investigation  of  Christian  science ;  and 
critical,    in  this  respect,  that  as  regards  particulars  it  judges  of  the  utter- 
ances   of   Holy   Scripture   according   to   their   value,    carefully   explains, 
mutually  compares,  and  duly  distinguishes  between  the  accidental  form 
and  the  eternal  contents  of  the  doctrine  of  the   Bible.       In  order  here 
to  find  firm  ground  under  our  feet,  it  is  unquestionably  best  to  take  counsel 
with  the  Lord's  own  words,  and  to  make  them  our  starting-point.     Where 
He  is  acknowledged  as  the  Truth  in  the  spiritual  domain  of  life,  and  as 
King  of  the  creation,  certainly  such  expressions  as,  e.g.,  Matt,  xviii.   10  ; 
xxv.  31  ;  xxvi.  53  ;  Luke  xv.  10,  will  be  regarded  as  something  more  than 
a  poetic  figure  of  speech.     If  He  is  held,  on  the  ground  of  His  own 
witness  of  Himself,  to  be  God's  own  Son,  one  will  find  it  on  the  other  hand 
conceivable,  and  something  that  commends  itself  to  our  judgment,  that 
His  appearing  in  the  flesh  should  receive  lustre  from  revelations  of  the 
world  of  spirits.     If  we  take  this  appearing  as  the  centre  of  the  history  of 
the  Kingdom  of  God  in  the  world,  that  of  Israel  becomes  its  preparation, 
that  of  the  Apostolic  age  its  after-operation  ;   and  in  this  light  not  a  little 
in   this   domain    also   is   comprehensible,   which   otherwise,    regarded   in 
itself,    would    legitimately  call    forth    astonishment :    and    if  we    now   in 
general  agree  as  respects  this  sphere  of  thought,  the  judgment  on  particular 
appearances  of  Angels  will  naturally  depend  upon  further  exegetical  and 
critical  investigation,   which,  however — from  tlu  Christian-theistic  stand- 
point— may  in  no  case  be  dominated  by  the  preconceived  opinion  that 
miracles  are  impossible.     We  must  not  import  our  own  conceptions  and 
denials  in  regard  to  the  world  of  spirits — conceptions  and  denials  derived 
we  know  not  whence — in  order  thereby  to    test  the  Bible;  but,  on  the 
contrary,  must  regulate  our  ideas  on  a  subject,  of  which  by  our  own  light 
we  can  know  nothing,  by  the  well-pondered  word  of  Revelation.     In   this 
way  it  is  possible  even  here  to  arrive  at  a  certain  degree  of  clearness  and 
certainty,  although  sufficient  data  are  wanting  to  answer  many  a  question 
in  a  decisive  manner. 

7.  Following  in  this  way,  there  is  not  a  little  concerning   the  world  of 

18  E.g.,  Luke  xvi.  22.  19  E.g.,  Acts  xii.  15.  M  Jude  8,  9. 


THE  WORLD   OF   SPIRITS.  315 

spirits  which  we  may  accept  as  sufficiently  certain.  It  may  then  be 
regarded  as  certain  that  Angels  exist,  that  they  are  not  simply  imper- 
sonal powers  (Potenzen),  which  are  represented  in  Holy  Scripture  as 
messengers  of  God ;  but  higher  spirits,  who  know,  and  serve,  and  praise 
Him  better  than  man,  and,  just  as  man,  were  created  by  the  word  of  God's 
power.  "If,"  says  Plitt,  "we  once  place  ourselves  distinctly  and  defi- 
nitely at  the  essentially  Theistic  standpoint  of  Scripture,  and  have  from 
that  standpoint  recognised  the  unique  and  absolute  value  of  the  idea  of 
real  fr.e  personality,  in  a  metaphysical  and  ethical  point  of  view  ;  we  have 
no  longer  even  the  inclination  to  doubt  that  which  the  Scripture  of  the 
Old  and  the  New  Testament  tells  us  about  the  creatures  of  God  in  the 
invisible  world,  the  Angels."  We  may  also,  on  reasonable  grounds, 
believe  that  they  were  originally  created  good,  and  yet  have  a  capacity  for 
continual  development.21  That  in  this  domain  also  an  infinite  fulness  and 
diversity  exists,  we  should  probably  suppose,  even  though  Scripture  had 
given  us  no  suggestive  hints  in  regard  thereto.*2  The  same  is  true  with 
respect  to  that  which  is  here  taught  as  to  their  constant  interest  in  the 
wellbeing  and  salvation  of  men  and  sinners,  and  the  continual  intercourse 
between  heaven  and  earth,  in  regard  to  which  the  service  of  Angels  also 
is  by  no  means  excluded,  although  the  How  and  the  How-far  thereof 
is  not  to  be  further  denned.  We  thus  reject  "  the  error  of  the  Sadducees, 
who  say  that  there  are  no  spirits  or  Angels."23  God,  who  has  need  of  no 
one,  makes  use  of  Angels,  as  well  as  men,  to  accomplish  His  counsel  and 
will.  Perhaps  we  may  assume  that  their  service  and  activity  comes  yet 
more  definitively  into  the  foreground  at  great  turning-points  in  the  history 
of  the  world  and  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  ;  such  as  the  founding  of  the  Old 
and  the  New  Covenant,  the  humiliation  and  exaltation  of  Christ,  the  judg- 
ment of  the  world.  From  this,  at  the  same  time,  may  be  explained  the 
long-enduring  absence  of  all  Angelophanies  at  other  periods,  without 
proving  anything  against  the  existence  and  work  of  Angels  in  itself. 

8.  As  opposed  to  these,  there  are  other  conceptions,  which — with  an 
eye  to  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  wholly  in  the  spirit  of  the  Saving 
Revelation — may  in  our  opinion  be  decidedly  denied.  To  this  number 
belongs  the  belief  in  guardian  angels,  at  least  in  the  form  in  which  this  is 
confessed  by  Rome.  In  Matt,  xviii.  10,  it  is  indeed  taught  in  general  that 
"  the  little  ones"  have  their  Angels;  but  from  this  it  still  does  not  follow 
thxt  a  personal  and  particular  Angelic  guardian  is  assigned  to  every  man. 
Acts  xii.  15  is  the  expression  of  a  popular  belief,  of  which  the  value  is  not 
more  nearly  defined.  — Just  as  much  to  be  rejected  appears  the  assertion 
that  the  Angels  are  the  advocates  and  mediators  of  men  before  the  throne 
of  God.  Poetical  prophetic  utterances  of  the  Old  Testament  on  this 
subject — e.g.,  Job  xxxtii.  23;  Zech.  i.  12;  Dan.  ix.  21-23 — supported  by 
no  single  word  of  the  Lord,  afford  no  sufficiently  firm  ground  to  build 
upon  them  alone  an  article  of  Christian  doctrine  (comp.  §  viii.  5,  6) ;  the 
less  so,  since  the  Gospel  knows  only  of  One  Advocate  and  Mediator. — Least 
of  all  is  the  religious  veneration  of  Angels  to  be  permitted  ;  since  this  is 
condemned  by  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament  with  the  strongest 

21  Ephes.  iii.  10;  I  Pet.  i.  12.       K  Luke  i.  19;  Ephes.  i.  21.      a  Neth.  Con/.  Art.  xii. 


316  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

emphasis,24  and  has  been  censured  and  prohibited  by  the  Synod  of  Laodi- 
caea,  towards  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  and  later  by  Augustine  and 
Gregory  the  First  The  invocation  of  Angels  has  no  meaning,  so  long  as 
it  is  not  manifest  that  we  must  regard  them  as  almighty  and  omnipresent. 
And  the  boundary  line  which  Rome  draws  between  $ov\da,  which  may 
be  rendered  to  the  Angels  also,  and  Xar^a,  which  must  be  rendered  to 
God  alone,  appears  in  practice  much  too  superficial  to  oppose  with  the 
desired  result  a  superstitious  deification  of  the  creature. 

9.  Wholly  uncertain,  finally,  remain  questions  like  these.     Touching  the 
nature  of  angels  :  whether  they  were  created  before  man,  rather  than  after 
him  ;  created  free  from  all  corporeity,  or  simply  from  our  more  gross  one  ; 
absoli'tely  raised  above  all  temptation,  or  in  some  sense  still  susceptible 
thereof ;  in  all  or  only  in  some  respects  more  excellent  than  men.     Touch- 
ing their  place  oi  abode :  where  they  are  properly  to  be  sought,  and  to 
what  extent  we  are  to  suppose  that  they  are  constantly,  although  invisibly, 
near  to  us  on  earth.     Touching  their  activity  :  wherein  it  consists,  how  far 
it  yet  extends  to  this  part  of  creation,  in  what  way  it  is  recognised  and 
experienced,  etc.     To  such-like  questions  the  answer  still  remains,  "  We 
know  in  part."     Still  this  by  no  means  justifies  us  in  wholly  rejecting  the 
doctrine.     On  the  contrary,  in  the  words  of  Melancthon  :  non  propterea 
abjicienda  cst  doctrma  certa  et  utilis  vita,  dt  multis  rebiis  etiamsi  multa  igno- 
ramus.    Prceparnnus  nos  ad  aternam  illam  Acadcmiam,   in  qua  integrant 
Physicam  discemus,  cum  Ideam  mundi  nobis  ArcJiitectus  ipse  monstrabit. 

10.  Without  justice  has  it  been  asserted,  by  Schleiermacher,  Scholten, 
and  others,  that  Angelology  has  no  religious  and  theological  significance.    It 
is  true  we  have  here  to  do  with  no  fundamental  article  of  doctrine,  in  the 
sense  in  which,  for  instance,  the  Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God  and  the 
Resurrection  of  our  Lord  are  thus  named  ;  but  yet  it  is  a  question  here  of 
something  more  than  that  which  is  a  matter  of  absolute  indifference,  whe- 
ther for  the  doctrine  of  Salvation  or  the  doctrine  of  Life.     Belief  in  the 
existence  of  Angels,  built  up  upon  trustworthy  utterances  and  facts  of  reve- 
lation, renders  more  clear  our  conception  of  the  all-surpassing  majesty  of 
God,  of  the  Divine  greatness  of  the  Lord,  and  the  glory  of  His  yet  future 
last  appearing.     Certainly  it  may  be  abused,  as  is  apparent  from  history,  to 
the  ends  of  superstition,  indolence,  ascetic  rigorism  towards  oneself.25     But 
restricted  within  the  above-defined  limits,  the  recognition  of  this  truth  also  has 
an  exceedingly  practical  bearing.     It  raises  man,  by  reminding  him  of  his 
exalted  rank26  and  his  high  destiny.27     It  shames  the  sinner  by  asserting  to 
him  the  possibility  of  a  normal  development  of  spiritual  beings,  but  at  the 
same  time  by  showing  to  him  their  interest  in  the  work  of  his  conversion. 
It  directs  the  Christian  to   a  lofty  source   of  consolation,28  an  excellent 
example,29  and  a  heart-cheering  perspective.30   The  life  of  the  Church  and  of 
the  heart  would  certainly  be  in  no  worse  position  if  the  suggestive  hint  of 


24  Col.  ii.  18;  Rev.  xix.  IO;  xxii.  8,  9.  "*  Ps.  xci.  ir,  12. 

25  Col.  ii.  23.  !9  Matt.  vi.  10. 
36  Ps.  viii.  5.                                                                               *  Heb.  xii.  22. 
v  Matt.  xxii.  30. 


THE  CREATION   OF  THE  WORLD.  317 

Calvin  were  taken  to  heart :  In  omni  conventu  sacro  sentimus  nos  in  conspectu 
Dei  et  Angelorum. 

Compare  three  Sermons  by  LUTHER  on.  Good  and  Bad  Angels  (1533),  Walch  x. ;  J. 
HERINGA,  Verhandeling  over  de  Engelen,  Soc.  of  the  Hague  (1811);  the  article  of 
BOEHMER,  in  Herzog,  ft,  £.,  iv.  ;  A.  ROHLING,  Ueber  den  Jch.-Engel  des  A.  B,  (1866). 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

The  gradual  progress  and  development  of  the  Angelulogy  of  the  Bible. — Further  dis- 
cussion of  single  cruces  interpretuni  in  this  domain. — What  value  is  to  be  attached  to 
the  older  and  more  modern  polemic  against  the  doctrine  of  Angels  ? — The  Ilierarchia 
catlestis  of  the  Romish  Church  more  nearly  examined. — Significance  of  belief  in  this  truth 
also,  especially  for  the  Christian  Theologian  and  the  Preacher  of  the  Gospel. 


SECTION  LVIII.— THE  CREATION   OF  THE  WORLD. 

As  the  creation  of  the  Universe,  and  particularly  of  the  World  of 
Spirits,  so  is  also  that  of  our  Earth,  the  work  of  an  Almighty  Will, 
whereby  it  once  began  to  be  out  of  nothing,  and  was  brought  into 
its  present  condition.  The  Christian  religious  belief  in  God  as  the 
Creator  of  the  World  does  not  necessarily  stand  or  fall  with  one 
particular  interpretation  of  the  Mosaic  Document ;  but  still  the  un- 
biassed study  of  this  last — compared  with  the  cosmogonies  of  other 
nations,  and  the  discoveries  of  natural  science — will  strengthen  the 
conviction  that  its  essential  contents  contain  undeniable  truth,  and 
ultimately  rest  upon  Divine  revelation.  In  this  light,  the  world  in 
its  genesis  presents  the  scene  on  which  the  Omnipotence,  Wisdom, 
and  Goodness  of  God  is  displayed ;  originally  good,  and  perfectly 
adapted  to  its  destination. 

i.  After  we  have  spoken  in  general  of  the  Universe  and  the  World  of 
Spirits,  we  have  now  to  investigate  what  the  science  of  faith  proclaims  con- 
cerning the  creation  of  this  our  world.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  show  that 
this  investigation  is  for  us  of  yet  greater  importance  than  the  former  ;  but,  at 
the  same  time,  that  it  was  already  thereby  prepared  for,  and  may  therefore 
now  be  abbreviated.  For  what  is  true  of  the  totality  of  things  which  exist 
distinct  from  God,  is  also  true  of  this  part — that  it  was  originally  created  by 
God,  in  the  beginning,  out  of  nothing.  This  is  also  in  reality  understood  or 
expressed  in  Scripture  places  like  Neh.  ix.  6 ;  Ps.  viii.,  xix.,  civ.,  cxlvi.  6 ; 
Isa.  xl.  12;  Acts  iv.  24.  But  now  it  becomes  the  question,  whether 
anything  yet  more  definite  than  these  general  facts  is  known  to  us  concern- 


318  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

ing  the  origin  of  this  our  earth.  All  other  utterances  of  Holy  Scripture 
direct  us  back  to  the  Mosaic  document  of  Gen.  i.  i — ii.  3.  The  examina- 
tion as  to  the  essential  contents,  the  character,  and  the  abiding  significance  of 
this  document,  must  consequently  now  more  particularly  occupy  us. 

2.  The  literal  interpretation  of  the  Mosaic  document  of  creation  does  not 
properly  belong  to  the  domain  of  Christian  doctrine,  least  of  all  within  the 
limits  here  marked  out  to  us.  We  have  to  do  only  with  the  knowledge  of 
the  essential  contents,  so  far  as  these  continue  to  be  of  actual  significance  for 
a  clear  and  well-grounded  conception  of  the  creation.  It  may  contribute 
to  the  attainment  of  this  to  observe  at  once,  that  while  the  solemn  beginning 
(ver.  i )  evidently  has  reference  to  the  genesis  of  all  things,  to  which  thus 
also  this  earth  belongs ;  the  second  verse,  on  the  other  hand,  begins  the 
fuller  description  of  the  mode  in  wi.ich  afterwards  the  earth — originally  like  a 
waste,  unformed  chaos — was  by  Omnipotence  formed  and  adapted  to  be 
the  dwelling-place  of  men  and  animals.  More  is  read  "  between  the 
lines"  than  is  therein  really  communicated,  when  in  the  "  without  form  and 
void"  a  total  desolation  is  thought  to  be  indicated,  in  consequence  of  a 
presumed  insurrection  of  the  world  of  spirits,  which  at  an  earlier  period  are 
supposed  to  have  inhabited  this  globe,  but  are  now  banished  therefrom. 
Not  upon  a  moral,  but  upon  a  natural  domain,  does  the  Writer  conduct  us, 
as  he  describes  the  yet  unformed  world,  wholly  covered  with  water ;  but 
over  which  the  Spirit  of  Life,  like  the  broo  Jing  dove,  already  hovers  with 
outspread  wings.1  How  that  life  arose  is  sketched  forth  to  us  in  a  series 
of  six  pictures,  evidently  divided  into  two  parallel  groups  ;  so  that  the 
fourth  day  of  creation  points  back  to  the  first,  the  fifth  to  the  second, 
and  the  sixth  to  the  third.  The  whole  of  the  six  days'  creative  work — the 
Hexaemeron  —  is  crowned  by  a  seventh  day,  of  which  no  evening  is 
mentioned  ;  it  is  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  rest  of  God,  which  is  still  con- 
tinued, and  in  which  the  work  of  upholding,  governing,  and  bringing 
to  completion  all  things,  succeeds  the  proper  work  of  creation.  So  the 
creation  proceeds  by  degrees  and  after  long  intervals,  in  such  wise 
that  Omnipotence  ascends  in  an  orderly  manner  from  the  lower  to  the 
higher,  and  begins  with  the  creation  of  light — the  first  condition  of 
all  lire — to  conclude  with  man,  as  the  ultimate  object  and  crown  of  all  its 
works.  As  concerns  the  days  of  creation,  of  which  the  beginning  is 
reckoned,  according  to  the  Israelitish  division  of  time,  from  the  evening : 
to  the  question  whether  the  sacred  narrator  here  meant  ordinary  days,  or 
greater  periods  of  perhaps  overwhelming  extent,  the  answer  of  an  unbiassed 
exegesis  cannot  be  doubtful.  It  is  clear  that  he  thought  of  ordinary  days, 
as  is  manifest,  for  example,  from  the  mentioning  of  the  seventh  in  connec- 
tion with  the  weekly  Sabbath  rest ;  although,  on  the  other  hand,  it  n.ust 
be  admitted  that  at  least  for  the  first  three  days — when  as  yet  the  heavenly 
luminaries  were  placed  in  no  ordered  relation  to  our  earth — we  cannot 
think  of  any  precisely  marked-out  period  of  time.  Since,  as  is  well  known, 
this  narrative  describes  the  things  of  heaven,  also,  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
earth,  that  which  we  read  concerning  the  fourth  creative  day  must  be  under- 
stood as  implying  that  the  heavenly  luminaries,  created  by  God,  now  began 

1  Compare  Deut.  xxxii.  II. 


THE  CREATION   OF   THE  WORLD. 


319 


henceforth,  in  their  regular  succession,  to  render  their  service  to  the  earth 
by  day  and  by  night.  With  the  light  of  the  sun  the  great  work  is  now 
carried  nearer  to  its  completion,  and  that  in  such  a  way  that  the  higher 
ranks  of  creatures  do  not  of  themselves  proceed  fro  n  the  lower  in  the  way 
of  merely  natural  development,  but  in  consequence  of  an  ever  renewed 
creative  power  of  God,  appear  successively  after  and  side  by  side  with  each 
other.  God  gives  not  simply  the  first  impulse  to  the  gigantic  physiological 
process  of  development,  whereby  the  Chaos  becomes  a  Cosmos,  but  at  every 
new  act  in  this  mitciiless  drama  He  Himself  is  present,  and  directly  opera- 
tive by  His  quickening  power.  The  vegetable  kingdom  prepares  the  way 
for  the  animal;  and  not  out  of  but  after  this  last,  man  appears  on  the  scene, 
as  the  beginning  of  a  new  kind  of  creatures,  who  now  stands  at  the  head  of 
the  completed  Creation,  and— after  so  many  ages,  still  only  imperfectly 
interprets  it. 

3.  As  to  the  beauty  and  sublimity  of  a  document  in  which,  from  begin- 
ning to  end,  a  stately  psalm-tone   resounds,  there  can  be  but  one  opinion. 
As  regards  the  definite  character,  however,  which  must  be  ascribed  to  it, 
opinions   have  at  all  times   differed.       Not  a  few,   as  Eichhorn,  Gabler, 
Bauer,  and  others,  have  founl    here  a  so-called  philosophical  m\th,  wherein 
a  highly  cultivated  Israelite  has    given  us  the  fruit  of  his  reflections  as  to 
the  origin  of  all  things,  clothed    in  the  form  of  history.     That,  however, 
neither  the  contents,  nor  the  tone,  nor  the  place  of  the  narrative  of  creation 
speaks  in  favour  of  this  construction,  is  at  once  apparent  to  every  one.     By 
all  later  men  of  God,  as  also  by  Jesus  and  the  Apostles,  the  contents  thereof 
are  manifestly  regarded  as  history.2      The  form  in  which  the  genesis  of  all 
things  is  here  clothed  can  be  just  as  little  explained  from  the  mythical  stand- 
point, as  can  the  particular  object  contemplated  by  the  anonymous  thinker 
in  giving  it  precisely  this  form.     The  origination  of  such  a  sublime  poem 
at  a  time  when,  in  other  respects,   religion  and  philosophy  were  in  an 
extremely  unde /eloped  condition,  remains   incomprehensible;  and  not  less 
so  the  remarkable  agreement  between  its   contents  and  the  cosmogonies  of 

o  o 

other  nations,  which  rather  warrants  the  conjecture  that  all  proceeded  from 
a  common  source.  By  what  fatal  accident  came  the  thinker  on  the  genesis 
of  the  world,  who  stood  so  much  higher  than  the  most  renowned  philo- 
sophers, to  remain  unknown  to  posterity?  Assuredly  "the  historical 
account  which  is  given  there,  bears  in  itself  a  fulness  of  speculative 
thoughts  and  poetic  glory  •  but  is  itself  free  from  the  influences  of  human 
philosophemes  :  the  whole  narrative  is  sober,  definite,  clear,  concrete."8 

4.  Not  much  more  favourable  can  our  judgment  be  as  to  the  so-called 
allegorical  conception,  formerly  advocated  in  various  ways  by  some  of  the 
ecclesiastical  Fathers,  as    Theophilus,  Basil,   Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Ori- 
gen,   Augustine,  and   others,4  developed   in  more  than  one  way  by  the 
Schoolmen  of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  still  defended  with  much  ability  by 
Herder,  in  the  second  half  of  the  past  century.     The  account  of  the  crea- 

2  Matt.  xix.  4 ;  Acts  iv.  24. 

1  DELITZSCH  ;   comp.   PAREAU,  De  myth.  S.  S,   interpretat.  2nd  edition  (1824),   p. 
86,  sqq. 

4  See  the  places  in  STRAUSS,  Chr.  Glaube,  i.,  p.  618,  and  following. 


320  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

tion  was,  according  to  this  last,  an  optical  representation  of  the  beginning 
of  all  things,  derived  from  that  which  is  still  seen  to  take  place  every  morn- 
ing at  sunrise.  "  The  Divine  commencary  on  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis 
breathes  in  the  morning  air.  We  have  here  a  hieroglyph  of  creation."5 
Yet  it  may  be  doubted  whether  this  hieroglyph  has  found  in  Herder  its 
Champollion.  The  account  itself  at  least  gives  no  single  hint  that  it  is  thus 
to  be  understood ;  and  the  conception,  however  ingenious,  is  not  natural 
enough  to  be  really  in  the  spirit  of  the  ancient  world.  Although  the  poetic 
mind  sees  now,  in  the  awakening  of  Creation  at  the  rising  of  the  morning 
sun,  a  remarkable  image  of  the  first  arising  of  all  things,  this  does  not  prove 
that  it  was  so  intended  by  Moses,  still  less  that  an  angelic  being,  from  the 
height  of  a  mountain  top,  should  have  instructed  in  this  form  the  first  man 
about  the  origin  of  the  world. — Yet  more  baseless  is  the  assertion  of  Schen- 
kel,  that  the  Hexaemeron  was  to  be  simply  an  emblem  (N.B.)  of  the  holi- 
ness of  the  week. 

5.  Undoubtedly  higher  than  the  mythical  and  allegorical  conceptions  stands 
the  visionary  one,  advocated  by  Kurtz,  Keerl,  and  others.     According  to 
their  view,  the  great  process  of  the  world's  beginning  was  made  known  in  a 
series  of  retrospective  visions,  either  to  Moses,  or  to  another  whose  written 
evidence  Moses  made  use  of.     As  in  other  cases  the  future  is  unveiled 
before  the  eye  of  the  Seer,  so  on  this  occasion  the  past  is  unveiled,  in  such 
wise  that  the  objective  truth  of  the  revelation  blends  with  the  subjective 
conception  of  the  man  of  God.     Yet  even  this  key  seems  not  entirely  to  fit 
into  this  oldest  of  all  enigmas.     The  account  itself  contains  just  as  little  to 
favour  its  being  taken  as  a  vision,  as  does  that  which  is  later  communicated 
concerning  Paradise  or  the  fall.     No  second  instance  of  such  >a  retrospect- 
ive prophetic  vision  is  known  to  us  in  the  history  of  revelation.     In  con- 
junction with  this  view   it  becomes  to  us  incomprehensible  even,  how  in 
Exod.  xx.  8 — n,  the  Sabbath  commandment  could  be  brought  into  connec- 
tion with  the  six  days'  work  of  creation  ;  a  precept  of  the  law  may  well 
rest  upon  a  known  fact,  but  not  upon  a  visionary  representation.     Neither 
is  the  first  page  of  the  Bible  understood  by  any  Prophet  or  Apostle  other- 
wise than  as  a  purely  historic  account  of  Divine  deeds  in  the  morning  of 
creation. 

6.  Thus  everything  conspires  to  lead  us  back  to  the  historic  interpretation, 
which  needs  only  to  be  more  fully  described  and  defended,  in  order  to  find 
its  commendation  in  itself.     We  believe  we  are  really  reading  here  the  history 
of  the  world's  genesis,  naturally  not  in  the  every-day  sense  of  that  word,  but 
in  the  higher  religious  and  theocratical  sense  thereof;  an  historic  account, 
resting  on  tradition,  coming  down  from  the  first  man,  preserved  ages  long 
in  oral  tradition,  later  in  a  written  form,  brought  within  the  knowledge  of 
Moses,  placed  at  the  head  of  the  Thora,  and  now,  after  so  many  centuries, 
better  adapted  than  anything  else  to  afford  us  satisfactory  guidance  as  to 
the  origin  of  all  things.     That  opinion,  advocated  inter  alias  by  Delitzsch, 
Keil,  and  others,   has  not  a  little  by  which  it  commends  itself. — Even 
d  priori  it  is  probable,  that  a  traditional  belief  on  this  point  would  have  pre- 

6  Compare  P.  HOFST.  D.  GROOT,  Ofvoed.  d.  Menschd.,  i.,  p.  37  ;  D.  N.  in  the  Bijb. 
Woordenb.,  iii.,  p.  286. 


THE  CREATION   OF   TH£  WORLD.  321 

vailed  amongst  the  oldest  inhabitants  of  the  earth,  just  as  all  popular  and 
religious  history  of  antiquity  took  its  start  in  tradition.  To  this  must  be 
added  the  undeniable  fact  that  Holy  Scripture — as  has  been  already 
observed  by  Vitringa,  and  after  him  by  d'Astruc — contains  two  different 
documents  referring  to  the  creation,  that  of  the  Elohist  and  that  of  the 
Jahvist  ;6  agreeing  with  each  other,  it  is  true,  in  the  leading  features,  but 
yet  differing  from  each  other  as  regards  particulars,  and  simply  placed 
beside  each  other,  as  it  were,  as  a  sign  that  the  earliest  tradition  was  pre- 
served, not  in  slavish  subjection  to  the  letter,  but  in  a  free  form. — More- 
over this  opinion  is  confirmed  by  a  glance  at  the  prevailing  spirit  of  the 
East,  even  in  later,  but  much  more  in  earlier,  times.  The  history  of  Islam 
shows  how  many  words  and  deeds  of  "the  Prophet"  were  passed  down 
from  mouth  to  mouth,  in  doing  which  every  one  must  give  the  name  of 
his  authority,  as  he  in  turn  must  name  that  of  his  predecessor ;  while  only 
later,  mention  could  be  made  of  systematic  historiography.  Even  in  the 
present  day  many  an  Arab  knows  the  genealogy  of  his  horse,  without  one 
link  being  wanting  in  the  long  chain  of  its  descent.  Something  similar  do 
we  rind  in  the  genealogy  of  Gen.  v.,  the  earliest  which  exists  on  earth.  In 
no  other  way  can  the  old  narrative  of  the  world's  creation  have  been  pre- 
served and  communicated  in  the  original  language  of  the  world ;  and  he 
who  first  wrote  it  was  already  removed  by  a  multitude  of  ages  from  the 
cradle  of  humanity.  There  is,  in  this  scarcely  to  be  disputed  view,  nothing 
which  could  call  forth  suspicion  or  doubt.  That  the  art  of  writing  was 
practised  at — yea,  before — the  time  of  Moses  in  Egypt,  we  may  safely 
regard  as  established.  Equally  clear  is  it,  that  Moses,  in  his  youth,  had 
abundant  opportunity,  and  certainly  an  equally  great  desire,  to  become 
acquainted  with  the  traditions  of  the  patriarchal  age,  and  those  of  an 
earlier  period.  It  would  thus  be  wrong  to  take  the  word  tradition  forth- 
with in  an  unfavourable  meaning,  as  though  Tradition  (-Sage)  and  fiction 
were  tacitly  to  be  understood  as  words  of  the  same  significance.  Here 
rather  should  the  rule  find  its  application  :  "  the  older,  the  more  certainly 
trustworthy."  If,  as  we  believe,  the  account  of  Gen.  v.,  concerning  the  long 
duration  of  life  in  the  earliest  generations,  is  to  be  accepted,  then  the 
treasure  of  sacred  tradition  needed  to  pass  through  but  few  hands.  Noah 
probably  was  acquainted  with  Seth,  the  son  of  Adam. — If  we  now  finally 
add,  that  also  the  very  surprising  agreement  between  the  Mosaic  and  other 
cosmogonies  is  certainly  thus  best  explained — indeed,  "  the  same  undertones 
are  heard  everywhere,  from  the  Nile  to  the  Ganges" — and  that  this  con- 
ception is  at  the  same  time  wholly  in  harmony  with  the  letter  and  spirit  of 
the  New  Testament  Scriptures,  we  shall  confidently  repeat  the  words  of 
Luther:  "Moses  is  writing  a  history,  and  recording  things  which  really 
happened." 

7.  Everything  depends  solely  on  the  inner  value  which  must  be  attributed 
to  this  historical  tradition  ;  and  this  value  is  at  once  apparent  if  the  conviction 
is  confirmed  that  we  here  find  ourselves  in  no  lower  terrein  than  that  of 
God's  own  special  Revelation.  For  him  who  believes  in  a  living  God  and 
the  possibility  of  a  special  revelation,  not  a  few  reasons  may  be  advanced 

*  Gen.  ii.  4—25. 


322  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

which  render  worthy  of  our  acceptance  the  thought  that  the  first  fruit  of 
this  revelation  lies  before  us  on  the  first  page  of  the  Bible. 

Even  d  priori  we  may  safely  assert,  that  if  there  is  really  a  God,  who 
willed  to  be  known  and  worshipped  by  men,  He  must  begin  by  revealing 
Himself,  and  affording  them  so  much  light  as  to  the  creation  of  the  world 
as  was  called  for  by  their  capacity  and  need.  For  he  who  wills  the  end 
must  also  will  the  means ;  and  this  law  has  its  application  even  to  the  Supreme 
wisdom.  Knowledge  touching  the  origin  of  things  was — as  the  foundation 
of  all  religion — indispensable ;  and  this  could  not  be  attained  to  unless  it 
were  furnished  by  Him.  In  what  way  this  may  have  taken  place  is  a  ques- 
tion which  certainly  will  never  be  answered,  and  also  is,  in  a  certain 
respect,  of  comparatively  small  importance.  Here  we  are  concerned  with 
th;?  great  principle,  and  that  principle  can  be  rejected  only  where  one  no 
longer  reserves  in  his  thinking  a  place  for  a  personal  God,  and  a  direct 
communion  between  Him  and  the  humanity  allied  to  Him.  Not  a  little 
combines  to  lead  us  to  conjecture  that  in  the  first  age,  before  the  fall,  this 
communion  was  much  more  intimate  than  in  after  ages ;  and  the  religious 
faith  in  a  higher  education  of  humanity  leads  naturally  to  the  conviction 
that  the  highest  Educator  has  in  this  respect  least  of  all  "  left  Himself 
without  witness." 

Then  the  inner  excellence  of  this  narrative  must  be  taken  into  account, 
an  excellence  so  striking  that  an  origin  in  a  purely  natural  manner,  in 
such  extreme  antiquity,  may  be  regarded  as  inconceivable.  The  high 
inner  value  of  the  Mosaic  Geogony,  compared  with  the  cosmogonical 
traditions  of  other  nations — already  frequently  brought  into  prominence — 
can  here  be  only  indicated.  Enough  that  the  latter,  without  exception, 
display  either  a  hylozoistic  or  a  pantheistic-emanatistic  character;  while 
not  a  single  one  out  of  them  all  rises  to  the  pure  idea  of  a  properly  so  called 
Cr.ation  of  the  world.  The  boundary  line  which  separates  the  sublime 
from  the  ridiculous,  is  there  unceasingly  overlooked ;  by  Moses,  never.  In 
its  whole  and  in  its  parts,  his  document  proclaims  a  fundamental  character 
not  simply  strongly  Monotheistic,  but  also  purely  moral.  This  phenomenon 
is  inexplicable,  except  on  a  supposition,  to  which  literally  everything  impels 
us,  and  to  which  nothing  is  opposed,  except — a  Naturalistic  prejudice. 

Natural  science,  finally,  in  its  turn  places  an  important  weight  in  the 
scale,  in  favour  of  this  utterance  of  faith.  This  science  not  only  confirms 
in  every  way  the  necessity  of  fixing  a  point  of  Commencement,  properly 
so  called,  a  Beginning  of  all  things  ;  but  even  postulates,  for  the  satisfactory 
explanation  of  its  problems,  an  act  of  creative  omnipotence,  whereby  the 
first  life  was  awakened,  and — so  to  speak — all  was  first  set  in  movement. 
In  addition  to  this,  the  indisputable  phenomenon  is  to  be  taken  into 
account,  that,  according  to  the  testimony  also  of  renowned  naturalists,  the 
accuracy  of  the  Mosaic  representation  has  been  confirmed  in  a  number  of 
details  by  scientific  investigation,  and  often  in  the  most  surprising  manner. 
"  El  me  dans  toute  la  science  des  Egypt  tens,  mats  super  ieur  a  son  si  eel e^  says 
Cuvier,  "  Moise  nous  laisse  une  Cosmogonie,  dont  r exactitude  se  verifie  chaque 
jour  d'une  maniere  admirable."  Similar  testimonies  have  since  been 
repeated  by  men  like  an  Ampere,  Marcel  de  Serres,  Buckland,  Wagner, 
Burmeister,  Hugh  Miller,  Fabri,  and  many  others  with  them.  They 


THE  CREATION   OF  THE  WORLD.  323 

abundantly  counterbalance  the  undeserved  contempt,  with  which  this 
venerable  memorial  of  antiquity  has  been  met  on  the  other  side  ;  but  at 
the  same  tiaie  legitimate  our  right  confidently  to  express  the  judgment, 
that  he  who  here  with  determination  rejects  all  idea  of  revelation,  finds 
himself  in  difficulties  infinitely  more  numerous  and  infinitely  greater,  than 
he  who  finds  in  this  idea  the  only  satisfactory  answer  to  a  number  of 
questions.  Here  also,  if  any  where,  belief  in  God  is  the  light  of  all  our  science. 

8.  The  fierce  and  important  controversy,  which  is  now  being  waged 
with  varying  success,  between  Natural  Science  and  Biblical  Theology, 
need  not — after  what  has  been  said — terrify  us  above  measure.  This  is 
not  the  place  to  venture  on  even  a  single  attempt  at  its  decision;  but 
only  to  become  in  some  way  acquainted  with  what  is  going  on  in  the  con- 
tested field.  But  then  our  first  remark  must  be,  that  an  essential  injustice  is 
done  to  Scripture,  and  an  incalculable  injury  inflicted  on  faith,  so  soon  as 
here  the  Citiqne  suum  is  not  carefully  regarded,  and  the  boundary  line 
between  Natural  Science  and  Theology  is  in  the  least  overlooked.  The 
Scripture  is  the  trustworthy  document  of  the  Divine  Saving  Revelation,  no 
handbook  of  astronomy  or  geology  ;  and  it  is  thus  just  as  much  out  of 
place  to  wish  to  bind  or  conduct  these  last  by  an  appeal  to  Holy  Scripture, 
as  to  seek  in  Holy  Scripture  that  which  it  neither  promises  nor  designs  to 
furnish.  The  maxim  "quietly,  peacefully"  (schiedlich, fricdlich\  in  this  case 
is  a  rule  not  simply  of  prudence,  but  also  of  genuine  impartiality.  A  conflict 
arises  only  where  this  law  is  forgotten.  Natural  Science  will,  if  it  is  genuine, 
i.e.,  modest,  be  obliged  to  admit  that  it  knows  nothing  of  the  first  origin 
of  things;  Theology  can,  without  losing  anything,  acknowledge  that  the 
revelation  of  this  first  cause  is  here  given  in  an  exceedingly  childlike 
form.  Calvin  has  already  declared :  Moses,  vu/gl  ruditati  se  accommodans, 
scripsit ; 7  and  elsewhere  :  nos  potins  consideravit  sidera,  quam  prouti 
thcologum  deccbat. 

In  the  second  place  it  is  to  be  observed  with  thankfulness,  that  already  the 
"testimony  of  the  rocks"  has  spoken  on  more  than  one  point  with 
desirable  result,  to  the  honour  of  the  Mosaic  document,  and  that  many 
an  objection  formerly  raised  against  it  has  found  a  satisfactory  answer. 
The  •  creative  days  of  the  Bible  have  been  found  again,  to  a  surprising 
degree  of  accuracy,  according  to  the  testimony  of  many  of  its  most  illus- 
trious students,  in  the  gigantic  periods  of  the  earth's  formation,  of  which 
Geology  has  to  speak.  That  our  earth,  before  the  rise  of  any  life  upon  it, 
was  overspread  with  water,  seems  indubitable.  Only  ignorance  can  any 
longer  sport  with  the  idea  that  light  was  created  so  soon  as  the  first  day, 
while  the  sun  only  on  the  fourth  day  shone  upon  the  earth.  Here  the  word 
of  an  American  Theologian  has  its  application :  "This  stumbling-block  is  the 
corner-stone  of  creation."  That  the  first  life  was  born  in  the  depth  of  the 
sea  ;  that  a  gigantic  world  of  plants  arose,  still  without  the  influence  of  the 
sun's  rays,  which  only  afterwards  began  to  shine ;  that  the  creation  of 
animals  preceded  that  of  man,  and  that  he  was  re'.lly  the  last  and  highest 
work  of  Omnipotence,  is  acknowledged  even  by  those  who  cannot  be  sus- 
pected of  any  special  prepossession  for  the  word  of  Scripture. 

7  CALVIN,  /.  /.  i.  14,  3. 

Y   2 


324  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

Then  it  must  be  taken  into  consideration,  in  the  third  place,  that  the 
value  of  many  a  loudly  praised  scientific  result,  frequently  urged  with  lofty 
tone  against  t.he  word  of  Scripture,  is  by  no  means  raised  above  reasonable 
doubts.  We  do  not  determine  whether  Lichtenberg,  for  instance,  said  too 
much  when  he  wrote  that  nine-tenths  of  the  theories  touching  the  origin  of 
the  world  belong  more  to  the  domain  of  the  history  of  mind,  than  of  the 
history  of  the  eirth,  in  other  words,  are  to  be  regarded  as  more  or  less 
happy  imaginings.  But  already  the  nature  of  the  case  confirms  the 
observation  that,  as  the  oldest  history  of  nations  is  lost  in  tradition  and 
Sagas  (legendary  lore),  so  that  of  the  earth,  for  the  greater  part,  must  move 
in  the  region  of  hypothesis.  The  greatest  authorities  in  the  domain  of 
science,  on  this  account,  preach  modesty  both  by  word  and  example. 
"True  Geognosy,"  says  Alexander  von  Humboldt,  "makes  us  acquainted 
with  the  outer  crust  of  the  earth,  as  it  is  now.  On  the  other  hand,  all  that 
has  reference  to  the  former  condition  of  our  planet  is  ....  just  as  uncer- 
tain as  the  manner  in  which  the  atmosphere  of  the  planets  was  formed." 
Burmeister  also  spoke  of  his  theory  of  the  earth's  formation  simply  as  an 
hypothesis.  The  alternation  of  the  most  opposite  theories  in  the  geogonic 
domain  has  long  become  a  proverb,  and  even  yet  the  moment  does  not 
appear  to  be  come,  when  the  science  can  speak  of  a  result  as  absolutely 
proved,  so  as  to  command  universal  assent.  More  than  one  oracle,  on 
the  contrary,  which  once  made  itself  loudly  heard,  has  afterwards — not 
without  shame — recalled  its  words. 

This  being  so,  it  is  finally  clear  that  neither  on  the  one  side,  nor  on  the 
other,  has  the  last  word  yet  been  spoken ;  so  that  in  many  respects  the 
tone  of  jubilation  over  a  complete  reconcilement  may  be  regarded  as  being 
as  precipitate  as  the  complaint  about  irreconcilable  conflict.  The  only 
safe  way  thus  appears  for  the  moment  to  be  this,  that  as  well  the  science 
of  faith  as  the  study  of  nature,  each  in  its  own  sphere,  should  be  prosecute  1 
with  caution,  and  the  result  to  which  this  leads  be  awaited ;  yet,  with  the 
addition  of  the  full  conviction  that  the  latter  can,  in  our  opinion,  by  no  means 
be  a  gainer  if  it  refuses  to  listen  to  the  ultimate  answer  to  its  questions  given 
by  the  word  of  Revelation.  For  from  this  point  of  view,  indifferent  as  to  the 
rest  in  what  form  this  revelation  may  be,  we  continue  to  regard  the  first 
page  of  the  Bible.  We  cannot  possibly  believe  that  among  a  people  less 
learned  than  the  Egyptians,  less  philosophic  than  the  Greeks,  and  in  an 
age  when  natural  science  could  be  scarcely  said  to  have  an  existence,  a 
Cosmogony  like  this  could  have  arisen  in  a  merely  natural  way,  i.e.,  as  a 
result  of  purely  human  thought. 

9.  The  value  of  the  account  of  creation,  regarded  from  this  point  of 
view,  now  becomes  at  once  apparent.     It  possesses  this  even  in  itself,  as  a 
memorial  of  the  highest  antiquity,  rich  in  unsurpassed  beauty,  sublimity, 
truth,  and   power.       Besides,  we   have   here   the   authentic   basis    of  all 
religion,  especially  of  the  Israelitish,  and  notably  also  of  Israel's  Sabbath- 
commandment  ;    the    epitome  of  that  universal  revelation,   to  which   the 
particular  was  subsequently  joined.     No  wonder  that  Holy  Scripture  after- 
wards constantly  proceeds  from  this  great  fact  of  creation,  and  continually 
refers  thereto.  Even  after  so  many  ages  the  light  here  kindled  has  lost  nothing 
of  its  brilliancy.     And  for  our  time  too  an  instruction  is  here  given  which 


THE  CREATION   OF  THE  WORLD.  325 

protests  with  all  its  force  against  the  nature-idolatry  of  the  modern  Ethni- 
cism.  It  is  true  the  answer  which  is  here  given  to  the  great  question 
may  be  despised,  and  the  complaint  may  be  raised,  that  it  calls  forth 
a  number  of  new  interrogations.  But  then  as  the  upshot  nothing  remains 
but  to  grope  in  utter  darkness ;  boasting  of  a  science  which,  if  it  will 
proclaim  no  absurdities,  must  end  with  a  confession  of  absolute  ignorance. 

10.  la  the  light  of  Holy  Scripture  the  creation  of  this  earth  may  be 
considered  as  a  glorious  revelation  of  God's  infinite  Majesty.     His  Omni- 
potence appears  where,  as  Luther  says,  "  creating  is  for  Him  no  more  than 
for  us  the  mere  naming  of  things."     His  wisdom  beams  forth  in  the  gradual 
progress,  the  infinite  diversity,  and  the  beautiful  harmony  of  the  works  of 
Creation,  all  concurrent  to  one  adorable  end.    His  goodness  strikes  us  ever 
again,  where  we  see  each  creature  endowed,  not  only  with  what  is  neces- 
sary, but  also  with  what  is  superabundant ;  and  all  so  arranged,  that  everything 
that  lives  can  rejoice  in  its  existence,  and  glorify  its  Maker.     Certainly 
there  is  good  reason  for  speaking,  as  in  the  second  Article  of  the  Nether- 
lands Confession,  of  "  a  beautiful  book,  in  which  all  creatures,  great  and 
small,  are  as  it  were  so  many  letters  which  give  us  to  behold  the  invisible 
things  of  God,"     The   exact   sciences,  in   all  this,  direct  us   to  powers, 
phenomena,  laws ;    the  science  of  faith  overlooks  nothing  of  these,  but 
seeks  and  reads  behind   these  things  the  one  Name,  which  alone  is  le 
dernier  mot  of  all  that  is  finite.     Only  it  must  not  forget  that,  in  the  words 
of  Fr.  von  Baader,  "  it  must  be  said,  in  regard  to  the  Creation,  that  the 
intelligent  creature  can  never  know  and  comprehend  the  way  and  manner 
in  which  God  produces  and  upholds  it ;  so  that  a  theory  of  Creation  in  this 
sense  is  nothing  but  a  presumptuous  expression." 

11.  Yet  whatever  may  remain  doubtful,  this  at  least  can  by  no  means 
be  contradicted,  that  thei  e  exist  solid  grounds  for  speaking  of  the  world  as 
originally  good,  and  perfectly  adapted  to  its  destination.8      Belief  in  the 
wisdom  and  goodness  of  God  leads  of  itself  to  this  position,  and  daily 
experience  confirms  it.     The  question  whether  this  world  is  really  the  best 
of  all   possible   conceivable   worlds,  a   question    so   frequently  discussed 
by  philosophy,  and  with  such  varying  results,  rests  at  least  in  part  upon  a 
misconception.    We  cannot  possibly  think  of  the  Infinite  One  as  resembling 
a  human  artist,  who,  out  of  a  number  of  objects,  chooses  at  last  that  one  which 
appears  to  him  best  adapted  to  his  purpose.     The  absolute  Optimisim  of 
Leibnitz  and  others  has— in  the  presence  of  so  much  misery — inevitably 
called  forth  opposition.9  And  it  must  by  no  means  be  forgotten  that  sin  has 
disturbed  the  harmony  of  God's  glorious  Creation.     Yet  there  is  no  reason 
for  doubting  whether  the  world  objectively,  as  it  came  forth  from  the  hand 
of  its  Maker,  was  in  reality  "very  good  ;"  and  this,  well  considered,  covers 
more  than  the  question  whether  it  may  still  in  our  estimation  be  regarded 
as  unconditionally  the  best.     The  doctrine  of  the  Creation  can  lead  to  no 
other  conclusion ;  and  that  of  Providence  will  confirm  the  soundness  of 


9  Take,  for  example,  amongst  others,  VOLTAIRE'S  Candide,  and  KANT'S  Kritik  der 
Urtheilskraft.  Berlin,  1790. 


326  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

this  conclusion.      Mvndus  fan,  quam  per  creationcm  Deus  intendit,  maxime 
convtnit  et  accommodatus  est™ 

Compare,  on  the  Mosaic  account  of  Creation,  the  Commentaries  on  Genesis  of 
DELITZSCH,  BAUMGARTEN,  KKIL,  LANGE,  and  others,  not  forgetting  those  of  LUTHER 
and  CALVIN  ;  as  also  KURTZ,  History  of  the  Old  Covenant,  i.  On  the  Creation  itself,  in 
addition  to  the  literature  already  adduced  in  §  Ivi.,  that  also  which  is  furnished  by  LANGK, 
Bibel  Werk,  A.  7'.,  i.,  p.  22,  sqq.  On  its  glory,  KOSTUN,  God  in  de  Nat.,  3  parts  (1856) ; 
C.  FLAMMARION,  Dieu  dans  la  Natttre  (1867).  On  the  Cosmogony  of  the  Gentile 
nations,  as  compared  with  that  of  Moses,  the  Prize  Essay  of  A.  WUTTKE  (Hag.  Soc., 
1849);  H.  LUEKEN,  Die  Tradilionen  des  Menschengsschl.,  oder  die  Uroffenb.  G.  unter  d. 
Heid.  '(1856),  a  highly  interesting  book.  On  the  Credibility  of  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis  C.  A.  AUBEKLEN,  The  Divine  Revelation ;  compare  P.  HOFSTEDE  HE  GROOT, 
Opined,  d.  M.  (1847),  i.,  p.  127,  sqq.  On  the  harmony  of  the  account  of  Creation  with  the 
results  of  the  study  of  Nature,  F.  W.  SCHULTZ,  Die  Sckopf.-Gesck.  nach  Naturwisseitsck. 
tind  Bibel.  Zur  Verstdndigung  (1865) ;  and  above  all,  the  Prize  Essay  of  Til. 
ZOLLMANN,  Bibel  und  Natur  /«  der  Harmonie  iArer  O/enb.  (2nd  ed.,  1869);  O. 
ZOECKLER,  Die  Urgesch.  der  Erde  und  d.  M.,  in  the  Beweis  des  Glaubens  (1868),  pp.  498 — 
614  ;  F.  H.  REUSCH,  Bibel  und  Natur  (3rd  ed.,  1870),  where  at  the  same  time  is  iound 
a  full  review  of  the  most  recent  literature  of  the  question.  Add  to  these,  A.  F.  FUEHRER, 
Naturwiss.  u.  H.  Schr.  in  W.  HOFFMANN'S  Deutschland,  L  (1870),  ii.  (1871),  iv.,  and 
J.  H.  KURTZ,  Bibel  und  Astron.  (5th  ed.,  1870). 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

In  what  relation  do  the  two  accounts  of  Creation  in  Genesis  stand  to  each  other? — The 
Theosophic  interpretation  of  Gen.  i.  2. — The  different  ways  of  understanding  the  narrati\e 
of  Creation  more  nearly  examined. — A  glance  at  the  principal  Cosmogonies  of  antiquity.— 
The  most  important  objections  adduced  against  the  historic  character  and  credibility  of 
the  most  ancient  document— The  conflict  between  Theology  and  Natural  Science  under 
the  alternate  dominion  of  Orthodoxy  and  Freethinking.  —  History  and  criticism  of 
Optimism,  in  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  Creation. 


SECTION   LIX. — THE  PROVIDENCE  OF  GOD. 

That  which  God  has  once  created  remains  the  object  of  His  con- 
tinual care,  which  most  rightly  is  called  Providence  (fore-seeing). 
The  existence  of  this  Providence  is  indubitable,  its  domain  un- 
limited, its  manifestation  manifold,  and  its  mode  of  operation  in 
many  respects  raised  above  human  comprehension  ;  but  its  final 
aim,  the  realisation  of  the  Divine  plan  with  regard  to  the  world, 
and  the  believing  recognition  thereof,  is  of  the  highest  significance, 
alike  for  the  Theological  mode  of  thinking,  and  the  spiritual  life. 


10  The  world  in  the  highest  degree  corresponds,  and  is  adapted,  to  the  end  which  God 
aims  at  in  creation  (Leibnitz). 


THE   PROVIDENCE  OF  GOD.  327 

In  treating  of  this  subject,  attention  must  be  given  separately  to  the 
Upholding  and  the  Government  of  all  things  by  God  ;  without, 
however,  its  being  needful,  in  addition  to  these,  to  consider  under  a 
separate  head  the  Divine  Co-operation  (concur siis). 

% 

1.  With  the  doctrine  of  Creation  that  of  Providence  is  most  intimately 
connected.     It  is  as  it  were  the  continuation  of  the  line,  of  which  the  fiist 
point  is  afforded  in  the  beginning  of  all  things.     The  idea  implied  thereby 
is  already  indicated  with  sufficient  clearness  by  the  word  itself.     In  speaking 
of  Pro\idence,  we  do  not  think  of  the  foreknowledge  of  God  properly  so 
called ;  but  of  His  constant  care  for  all  that  exists,  outside  of  Himself,  but 
still  through    Him.     The  word   Providence — irp6t>oia,  prov'uleiitia — derived 
from  Gen.  xxii.  8,  14,  is  never  used  in  the  New  Testament  of  God,  but 
(twice)  of  man.1     The  idea,  however,  is  expressed  in  manifold  ways  by  the 
poets  and  prophets  of  Israel,2  and  is  proclaimed  with  the  greatest  emphasis 
in  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament.3      In  accordance  therewith  we 
find  indeed  this  belief  confessed  by  the  Christian  Church  of  all  ages,  and 
even  more  frequently  presupposed  than  distinctly  expressed.     Thus  in  the 
confession  which  bears  the  name  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  mention  is  made 
of  the  Creation,  but  not  of  Providence ;  in  principle,  the  confession  of  the 
latter  is  already  contained   in   that  of  the   former.     In  the   Symbolical 
Writings  of  the  Lutheran  Church  it  is  only  briefly  mentioned,  but  is  treated 
of  more  at  large  in  those  of  the  Reformed  Church,4  for  this  reason  amongst 
others,  that  it  was  most  intimately  connected  with  the  "  cor  ecdesiiz;"  but 
was  treated  specially  from  its  practical  side. 

2.  The  existence  of  the  Providence  of  God  is  absolutely  indisputable. 
Belief  in  this  truth  flows  at  once  from  the  Supranaturalistic  Theistic  idea  of 
God.     We  have  here  not  even  to  do  with  a  special  Christian  idea,  but 
with  an  idea  of  religion  in  general,  an  idea  which,  rightly  regarded,  is  abso- 
lutely inseparable  from  true  religion.     For  religion  presupposes  not  merely 
an  original,  but  also  a  continued  and  reciprocal  relation  between  God  and 
man.     The  word  Providence  moreover — like  Supreme  Being,  Godhead,  and 
other  words — is  employed  even  by  those  who  in  other  respects  do  not 
choose  to  start  from  Christian  conceptions.     The  recognition  of  the  fact 
was,  and  still  is,  found  among   enlightened  Heathen  ;  and  its  denial  was 
warmly  contested,  amongst  others,  by  a  Cicero  and  a  Seneca.5    The  noblest 
of  the  Greeks,  even  in  their  day,  were  raised  above  the  doctrine  of  a  blird 
inexorable  necessity  ;  and  the  earliest  of  the  Apologetes — a  Lactantius  and 
a  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  for  instance,— did  not  hesitate  to  rank  the  oppo- 
nents of  the  belief  in  Providence  with  the  Atheists.     Even  in  times  of  the 
boldest  unbelief  this  dogma  has  held  its  ground  longer  than  most  others  ; 

1  Acts  xxiv.  2  ;  Rom.  xiii.  14. 

2  Ps.  xxxiii.  13—15;  Isa.  xlv.  7. 

3  Matt.  x.  30  ;  John  v.  17 ;  Acts  xvii.  26,  27. 

4  Neth.  Confess.,  Art.  xiii.;  Hrid.  Cat.,  Answ.  27,  28. 

*  Cic.   De  Nat.  Dear.,  i.   20,  ii.   22.     Seneca,   De  Providfntid.     Compare  Homers 
Aids  S'ereXetero  /3oiA?j'  0eoD  ev  yovvaffi  Keircu. 


328  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

it  has  even  found  its  panegyrists  among  the  assailants  of  Christianity  itself. 
It  was  perceived  that  a  God  who  was  indeed  a  Creator,  but  cared  not  for 
that  which  was  created  by  Him,  would  not  deserve  the  name  of  the  highest, 
the  absolutely  perfect  Being ;  and — in  opposition  to  every  conception  of  a 
deistical  or  pantheistical  tendency — all  the  attributes  which  are  ascribed  to 
His  nature  were  applied  also  to  the  work  of  His  Providence. — No  wonder, 
indeed,  that  the  history,  sacred  and  profane,  of  whole  nations  and  parti- 
cular persons,  in  the  greater  and  smaller  features  of  their  lives,  adds  con- 
firmation to  the  same  confession.  However  frequently  the  leading  thread 
may  escape  our  observation  in  particular  details,  in  its  totality  history 
everywhere  displays  connection  and  order,  guidance  and  aim.  Not  every- 
thing in  the  domain  of  history  can  be  explained  as  a  merely  natural  c^nse- 
quence  of  purely  finite  causes  ;  phenomena  present  themselves,  in  which 
every  one  who  believes  in  a  living  God,  feels  himself  compelled  to  recognise 
the  power  of  a  higher  hand  and  will.  Think,  for  instance,  of  so  many 
little  unexpected  circumstances,  out  of  which  an  entirely  new  condition  of 
things  has  sprung ;  of  the  arising  of  great  geniuses  in  the  history  of  nations, 
in  the  domain  of  science  or  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  precisely  at  those 
junctures  when  all  was  ripe  for  their  mighty  influence  ;  of  dates— now  to 
speak  only  of  those  within  the  past  century — like  1795,  1812,  1848,  1870; 
above  all,  think  of  the  fulness  of  the  time  (Gal.  iv.  4j  in  connection  with 
the  appearing  of  Christ.  Will  it  be  said  that  chance  willed  all  this  just  in 
this  order  ?  But  chance,  as  such,  wills  and  orders  nothing,  because  it  does 
not  think  and  does  not  act. — So  much  the  less  can  this  be  the  last  word 
of  our  creed,  since  with  the  voice  of  history  that  of  every-day  experience  con- 
stantly unites  in  placing  the  word  Providence  in  our  heart  and  on  our  lips. 

3.  Of  this  Providence  the  domain  is  absolutely  unlimited.     Sometimes,  it 
is  true,  the  small  and  unimportant  has  been  excluded  from  the  sphere  of 
its  action ; 6   but  without  reason.      Indeed,  the  whole  antithesis  between 
great  and  small  is  but  relative,    and  exists  not  for  the  Infinite  One.     He 
could  not  possibly  control  the  great,  if  the  small — so  intimately  connected 
therewith — escaped  His  watchful  regard.    Yea,  precisely  hei  ein  is  the  glory 
of  God  manifested,  that  He  bows  down  to  that  which  is  least,  and  is 
Maximus  in  minimo.1     Doubt  on  this  point,  of  which  we  here  and  there 
meet  with   traces   among  the  ancient  Sages,  yea,  even  among  Christian 
"  Fathers,"  8  is  connected  with  an  anthropomorphistic  narrowness ;  and  mock- 
ery of  this  belief — such  as  is  heard,  for  instance,  on  the  part  of  a  Voltaire, 
a  Bayle,  etc. — is  simply  an  irreverent  blasphemy  of  that  which  is  not  even 
understood.     The  history  of  Revelation  contains  the  most  surprising  proofs 
of  the  Divine  ruling,  even  in  regard  to  that  which  is  minute  and  apparently 
accidental ; 9  and  the  Lord's  own  word 10  presents  to  us  this  wondrous  truth 
in  a  most  consolatory  light. 

4.  The  manifestation  of  the  Providence  of  God  is  manifold,  according  to 

6  Even  Cicero,  De  Nat.  Dear.,  c.  Ixvi.,  declared,    "  The  gods  care  for  great  things,  and 
are  careless  about  the  small :  "   Magna  Dii  curant,  parva  mgligunt. 

7  Ps.  cxiii.  5,  6. 

8  See,  e.g.,  Jerome,  in  Habac.  i. 

'  See,  for  example,  I  Kings  xxii.  34 ;   Esther  vi.  I  ;  Matt,  xxvii.  19 ;  Acts  xxiii.  16. 
10  Luke  xii.  6,  7. 


THE   PROVIDENCE   OF  GOD.  329 

the  nature  of  its  different  objects.  God's  care  embraces  all  things ;  but 
not  all  in  the  same  way,  and  in  like  measure.  This  is  the  ground  for,  and 
the  relative  justification  of.  the  whole  distinction  between  the  general,  the 
particular,  and  the  entirely  special  Providence  of  God ;  of  which  the  first 
has  relation  to  the  whole  creation,  the  second  to  man,  and  the  last  to 
God's  faithful  servants  and  the  whole  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  This  dis- 
tinction may  be  justified  from  Holy  Scripture,11  and  reason  also  compre- 
hends that  the  Living  and  Holy  God  must  stand  in  another  relation  towards 
rational  and  moral  beings,  from  that  in  which  He  stands  towards  irrational 
and  non-moral  ones.  We  find  thus  no  reason  for  regarding,  with  some,  this 
whole  distinction  as  something  purely  subjective,  or  lor  limiting  it  merely  to 
the  conception  that,  although  God's  care  is  the  same  for  all  Hie  creatures, 
the  receptivity  for  experiencing  this  care  differs  on  their  side.  God  Himself 
stood,  not  only  in  conception,  but  also  in  reality,  in  a  wholly  different  rela- 
tion towards  Israel,  from  that  which  He  occupied  towards  other  nations, 
and  manifested  His  care  for  the  former  in  an  entirely  peculiar  way.12 

5.  In  whatever  domain,  however,  the  manifestation  of  God's  Providence 
takes  place,  the  manner  of  its  operation  in  many  respects  surpasses  human 
comprehension.  We  may  certainly  presuppose  in  general  with  regard  to  it, 
that  it  is  equally  perfect  and  irreprehensible  as  God  Himself.  We  may  also 
add,  on  the  authority  of  the  Gospel,  that,  as  God  created  all  things  by  the 
Son,  so  also  the  Son  bears  them,  i.e.,  maintains  them  in  existence,  by  the 
word  of  His  power.13  Yet  if  we  now  wish  to  point  out  in  detail  how  God 
maintains  and  governs  all  things,  we  at  once  feel  the  limitation  of  human 
thought.  Starting  from  the  idea  of  the  Divine  Transcendency,  three  theories 
have  been  in  turn  presented,  yet  their  advocates  have  been  by  these  very 
theories  involved  in  serious  difficulties.  Occasionalism — (sy  sterna  causarum 
occasionalinm] — advocated  by  Des  Cartes,  Malebraache,  Bayle,  etc.,  asserted 
that  God  was  the  immediate  and  only  cause  of  all  that  happens  ;  so  that 
the  so-called  mediate  causes  simply  afforded  Him  occasions  (pccasiones)  of 
action.  Mechanism,  on  the  other  hand,  saw  in  all  that  happens  the  simple 
consequence  of  an  original  force  implanted  by  God  in  that  which  is  created, 
which  no  doubt  is  also  maintained  by  Him,  but  through  which  He  operates 
exclusively,  consequently  in  a  purely  mediate  way,  and  never  immediately. 
This  theory,  represented  by  the  Deists,  threatens  just  as  much  the  Divine 
freedom,  as  the  former  in  point  of  fact,  in  the  name  of  philosophy,  annihi- 
lates that  of  man.  A  middle  path  between  the  two  was  sought  and  found, 
especially  on  the  side  of  Orthodoxy,  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Co-opera- 
tion (concursus  gencralis].  This  assumes  a  common  activity  (co-operatio)  on 
the  part  of  God  with  the  mediate  causes,  whereby,  however,  the  result  of 
these  last  is  made  subservient  by  God  to  the  attainment  of  His  purposes. 
But  this  whole  conception,  even  though  it  admitted  of  being  reduced  to 
perfect  clearness,  leads  of  itself  away  from  the  idea  of  a  constant  help 
and  joint-operation  on  the  part  of  God,  thus  conferred  upon  the  creature 
from  without,  to  a  Deistic  mode  of  regarding  the  relation  between  God 
and  the  world.  The  difficulties  are  not  diminished,  if — attaching  the 

11  Matt.  vi.  25—32  ;  Ps.  xci.  it,  12.    "  Ps.  cxlvii.  19,  20;  compare  Acts  xiv.  16,  17. 
18  Heb.  i.  3;  Col.  i.  16,  17. 


33O  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

full  weight  to  the  Immanency  of  God  in  the  world — we  seek  to  realise  in 
our  contemplation  the  manner  of  God's  providential  activity.  Scarcely 
have  we  escaped  the  rock  of  Deism,  when  we  see  ourselves  threatened  by 
that  of  Pantheism ;  and  necessary  as  it  is  duly  to  distinguish  between  the 
law  of  nature  and  the  will  that  manifests  itself  in  that  law,  it  is  equally  im- 
possible to  find  the  exact  formula  for  indicating  the  intimate  connection 
between  the  two.  If  it  is  thought  necessary  to  separate  between  the  activity 
of  God  Himself  and  the  operation  of  the  creature,  in  order  to  assure  the 
independence  of  this  latter,  we  then  attain  no  farther  than  to  the  old  con- 
fession, as  expressed  by  Morus  :  "  Limites  n,>u  dcfiniiintur,  quousque  operetur 
so/,  agricola,et  ubi  incipiat  Dens."  But  even  this  separate  indpiat  is,  upon  a 
full  recognition  of  the  Immanency  of  God,  found  not  to  be  raised  above- 
serious  objections. 

6.  Thus  much,  however,  is  fully  established,  that  the  final  aim  in  the 
work    of  Providence  can  be  no  other  than  that  in  the  Creation  (§  lv.), 
so  that  it  is  and  continues  to  be  God  who,  according  to  the  profound  words 
of  Plato,  out  of  all  things  "  brings  forth   the  better."     As  opposed  to  the 
Empirico-realistic  view  of  the  world  taken  by  Naturalism,  which  in  its  conse- 
quences necessarily  leads  to  the  hopelessness  ol  Fatalism,  the  teleologic- 
ideal  view  thus  appears  in  its  full  lustre,  as  the  ripened  fruit  of  the  Christian 
belief  in   an  ever-living   and   ever-working    Providence   of  God. — Just  as 
clearly  is  it  apparent  that  this  belief  is  of  the  highest  importance,  on  account 
of  its  close  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  Creation,  of  Prayer,  and  of 
Redemption  ;  and  with  the  life  of  gratitude,  of  patience,  and  of  well-grounded 
hope  for  the  future,  of  which  the  possibility  and  the  power  would  be  wholly 
lost,  if  we  must  abandon  th ;  belief  in  the  "  almighty  and  omnipresent 
power  of  God,  by  which  He  still  upholds  and  governs,   as  with  His  own 
hand,  heaven  and  earth,  together  with  all  creatures." 

7.  Before  we  more  fully  discuss  this  Government,  yet  a  single  word  as  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Concursus,  by  some  again  more  or  less  distin- 
guished from  that  of  the  Upholding  and  Government  of  all  things.     We 
understand  thereby  the  co-operation  of  God  with  the   natural  causes  of 
things,  by  virtue  of  which  these  accomplish  what  according  to  His  counsel 
and  will  they  must  accomplish  ;  especially  His  influence  upon  the  free  acts 
of  men.     This  notion,  already  indicated  by    Clemens  Alexandrinus  and 
Thomas  Aquinas,  was  applied   and  developed  especially  by  the  Lutheran 
and  Reformed  theologians  of  the  seventeenth  century  ;  and  even  in  our 
own  day,  De  Wette,  Twesten,  and  Ebrard,  amongst  others,  have  dwelt  par- 
ticularly thereon  in  their   treatment  of  the  doctrine  of  Providence.     The 
distinction  arose  from  the  desire  to  recognise  a  certain  independence  as 
belonging  to  the  so-called  second  causes,  and  at  the  same  time  to  guard 
against  the  danger  of  God's  being  regarded  as  the  author  of  sin.     On  this 
account  a  distinction  was  made  between  the  Co-operation  in  the  material 
and  the  formal  character  of  the  act,  and  the  latter  only  was  admitted  where 
moral  evil  is  committed.     But  to  this  praiseworthy  end  the  means  do  not 
appear  to  be  happily  chosen.     For  if  a  certain  general  influence  of  God 
upon  all  that  happens  is  here  thought  of,  the  Co-operation  is,  properly 
speaking,  already  included  in  the  idea  of  Upholding.     Or  if  it  is  wished 
simply  to  indicate  that  God  has  indeed  a  guiding  influence  on  our  actions, 


THE   UPHOLDING   OF  ALL   THINGS.  331 

but  that  it  is  ever  we  ourselves  who  carry  them  out,  we  here  touch  the 
question  as  to  the  connection  between  God's  government  and  moral  free- 
dom, which  is  better  treated  of  when  we  discuss  the  doc*-;ne  of  the 
Government  of  all  things.  The  Co-operation  thus  belongs  to  th,  and  is 
in  a  certain  sense  the  higher  unity  of  the  two.  We  have  nothing  against 
the  thing  implied,  but  a  great  deal  against  the  method  of  discussing  the 
subject  as  a  particular  subdivision  of  the  doctrine  of  Providence.  As 
such  it  has  been — not  wholly  without  justice — named  by  Strauss,  "  the 
abortion  of  a  barbarous  metaphysics." 

Compare  LANGE'S  Art.  Vorsehung  in  Herzog,  R,  £.,  and  the  literature  there  pre- 
sented. On  the  word  Ilpjvota,  SUICER,  '1 ' kesaurus,  in  voce.  On  the  subject,  E.  A. 
BORGER,  De  historic  doctore,  pravidentue  divines  administro  (1817);  and,  among  the 
Dogmatists,  especially  TWESTEN,  /.  /.  ii.  i,  p.  98,  sqq. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Wherein  consists  the  "detestable  error  of  the  Epicureans"? — What  becomes  of  the 
idea  of  Providence  from  the  standpoint  of  Deism  and  of  Pantheism? — Is  the  Israelitish 
and  the  Christian  idea  of  Providence  in  every  respect  the  same  ? — Is  the  history  of  the 
world  also  not  sufficiently  explicable  without  this  idea? — History  and  criticism  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Concursus. 


SECTION   LX. — THE   UPHOLDING  OF  ALL  THINGS. 

The  Upholding  (Conscrvatid)  of  all  things  is  that  operation  of 
God's  will,  by  which  He  maintains  in  existence  and  order  the  whole 
organism  of  the  creation,  and  its  particular  parts,  so  long  as  it  pleases 
Him.  The  certainty  of  this  continued  care  is  guaranteed  by  the 
Christian  idea  of  God  itself;  its  necessity  is  founded  in  the  nature 
of  finite  things,  and  the  manner  in  which  it  displays  itself  proclaims 
a  majesty  of  God,  which  redounds  to  His  glorification. 

i.  Creation  and  Upholding,  however  closely  connected,  are  nevertheless 
distinct  from  each  other.  To  the  former  the  Universe  owes-  its  origin  :  to 
the  latter  its  continued  existence.  The  Creation  is  the  original  operation 
of  God's  omnipotence  :  the  Upholding,  the  continued  act  of  God's  faith- 
fulness. The  latter  has  been  termed  a  continuous  creation,  and  with 
justice,  in  so  far  as  there  is  thereby  indicated  that  the  Universe  co> 
tinues  to  exist  only  by  means  of  the  same  power  which  called  all  thin  s 
into  being.  But  behind  this  continuous  acr  there  remains  the  original 
creating  as  something  distinct,  and  we  must  careiully  see  to  it  that  the 
one  idea  is  not  sacrificed  to  the  other.  From  the  Deistic  standpoint 


332  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

Creation  and  Upholding  are  arbitrarily  separated  the  one  from  the  other  : 
God  creates  the  world,  but  it  upholds  itself  by  its  own  inherent  power. 
From  the  Pantheistic  standpoint,  on  the  other  hand,  Creation  and  Uphold- 
ing are  confused  the  one  with  the  other  ;  that  which  exists  continues  in 
existence,  but  one  cannot  speak  of  creating,  properly  so  called.  From 
the  Theistic  standpoint  alone,  as  well  the  difference  as  the  close  con- 
nection between  the  two,  receives  its  due  recognition. 

2.  By   the    Upholding   we    understand    something    distinct    from    the 
Government  of  the  world.     The  notion  of  the  latter  is  more  extensive ; 
but  it  is  not  therefore  useless  (as  Scholten  supposes)  to  devote  attention 
separately  to   the   former.     In   the   sight   of  God   undoubtedly  the  one 
includes  the  other  ;  but  for  our  power  of  thought  the  distinction  is  neces- 
sary.    "  The  Upholding  as  such,"  as  Lange  justly  observes,  "  secures  the 
natural  existence  and  order  of  the  world :  the  Government  secures  the 
ideality  of  its  progress  [correspondence  to  the  Divine  ideal]."      By  the 
former  we  mean,  not  only  that  God  allows  the  world  to  continue  in  exist- 
ence—that He  does  not  put  an  end  to  its  existence — but  more,  that  He 
causes  it  to  continue  in  existence ;  in  other  words,  that  He  aims  at  and 
effects  by  His  almighty  will  its  continued  existence.  This  activity  has  regard, 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  as  well  to  the  whole  organism  of  Creation 
(nexus  cosmicus),  as  to  each  particular  part.     What  would  be  the  use  of  the 
maintenance  of  the  whole,  without  that  of  the   parts,  and  vice  versa  ?     The 
one  and  the  other  remains  in  existence  and  order,  so  long  as  it  pleases  Him, 
i.e.,  so  long  as  it  corresponds  to  its  destination      "So  long,"  in  the  words 
of  Rothe,  "  as  the  result  of  the  existence  Oif"  the  creature  is  the  glory  of 
God,  His  good  pleasure  can  rest  upon  it ;  and  if  this  truly  rests  upon  it,  it 
is  preserved."   The  partial,  or  even  the  entire,  disappearance  of  some  orders 
of  creatures  can  prove  absolutely  nothing  against  the  doctrine  which  we 
are  here  discussing. 

3.  The  certainty  of  this  upholding  of  all  things  by  God  is,  according 
to  the  utterances  of  Holy   Scripture,    firmly   established. x     Even   where 
mention  is  made  of  second   causes    only,   He  is  usually  exalted  as  the 
Master-builder   of  all   that  takes  place  in  the   creation.      He   not   only 
stands  transcendentally  above   the  world,  but  is  immanent  in  the  world, 
with  His  all-pervading  power.      No  power  of  nature,  however  formidable, 
could  come   into    operation,   except    it  were  every   moment   determined 
in  its  course  by  His  almighty  will.      Because  God  is   the    Living   One, 
He  cannot  be  anything  less  than  the  fountain   of  life  for  all  His  crea- 
tures. *     This  by  no  means  contradicts  that  which  we  read  of  the  eternal 
sabbith-rest  of  God  ;8  of  which  already  Isaiah  testified4  that  this  was  to  be 
understood  in  a  sense  worthy  of  God.   Even  for  the  properly  developed  mind 
of  man,  rest  and  inactivity  are  by  no  means  words  of  the  same  import ;  and 
He  who  was  called  God's  highest  image  on  earth,  worked  so  long  as  it  was  day 
for  Him.5      The  resting  of  God  only  says  that  He  now  ceased  to  create 
entirely  new  sorts  of  beings,  since  He  placed  in  those  already  created  the 


1  Ps.  civ.  29,  30  ;  cxix.  90  ;  Matt  vi.  26 — 30.  *  Isa.  xl.  28. 

2  Ps.  xxxvi.  9  ;  John  v.  17.  b  John  ix,  4. 
*  Gen.  ii.  3  ;  Heb.  iv.  9—11. 


THE   UPHOLDING  OF  ALL  THINGS.  333 

power  of  continuing,  and  continually  preserves  them.  To  what  extent  the 
creative  activity  of  GoJ  is  manifesting  itself  perhaps  at  this  very  moment 
in  some  other  sphere,  is  absolutely  unknown  to  us.  But  here  He  con- 
tinues to  uphold  all  things  by  the  word  of  His  power,  and  all  that  lives 
continues  to  live,  solely  in  Him. 

4.  The  absolute  necessity  for  this  Upholding  is  based  on  the  nature  ot 
finite  things.     The  Universe  is  no  mechanical  work  of  art ;  but  a  living 
organism,  which  continues  to  exist  only  in  unceasing  communion  with  the 
Ever-living  One.     The  Egyptian  Pyramid,  once  raised  by  man,  can  defy 
the  course  of  the  ages,  without  being  constantly  supported  by  the  hand 
of  the  founder;  but  the  branch  torn  from  the  parent  trunk,  and  cast  on 
the  earth,  droops  and  withers  :  not  the  former,   but  the  latter,  is  the  meet 
image  for  representing  the  creiteJ  world.     Think  of  this  dependence  of  the 
Cosmos  as  not  being,  and  conceive  to  yourself  that  it  continues  to  exist  by 
its  own  strength,  like  a  colony  which,  dissevered  from  the  mother-country, 
continues  to  develop  itself:  this  colony   might  rival  in  glory  the  mother- 
state,  the  world  might  assert  its  claims  as  against  God ;   in  other  words, 
Deism  necessarily  leads  to  Dualism.     The  objection,  "  whether  the  vrorid 
is  then  SD  imperfect  as  to  call  for  a   contin.ial   care   from  above,  in  order 
that  it  may  continue  to  exist,''  would  havj  some  significance,  only  if  it 
should  appear  that  the  world  was  originally  intended  to  stand  wholly  by 
itself,  but  was  afterwards  seen  to  be  incapable  of  doing  so.     The  question 
here  is  not  what  world  would  seem  to  us,  regarded  altogether  in  the  ab- 
stract, to  be  the  most  perfect ;  but  what  world  the  reality  presents  to  our 
view,  when  we  look  to  it  in  the  light  of  faith. 

5.  To  the  question,  how  and  in  what  manner  God  upholds  all'things,  no 
perfectly  satisfactory  answer  can  be  given.     God's  word  in  Holy  Scripture 
gives  no  positive  hints  with  regard  thereto  ;  nor  has  enlightened  reason  any 
power  here  to  say  anything  really  decisive.       Neither  is  it  necessary,  in 
order  to  continue  to  believe  on  good  grounds  that  God  maintains  all  things 
in  existence,  that  we  should  be  able  wholly  to  review  and  point  out  the 
ways  and  means  employed  by  Him.     That  God  here  works  by  the  word  of 
His  will,  and  without  its  costing  Him  any  trouble  or  effort,  scarcely  needs 
to  be  suggested  to  the  mind  of  the  reader.6    It  is  also  manifest  to  us,  upon 
an  attentive  observation,  accompanied  with  sustained  reflection,  that  God 
upholds  things  in  a  manner  differing  according  to  their  different  nature. 
Lifeless  objects  accordingly  without  their  co-operation  ;  living,  but  irrational, 
beings  with  their  co-operation,  but  without   their  consciousness ;  rational 
and  moral  beings  under  the  condition  of  voluntary  co-operation  on  their 
part.     Of  some — plants,  animals,   men, — God  maintains  the  species;   of 
others — the  luminaries  of  our  planetary  system, — the  number  once  created. 
As  a  rule,  He  does  so — so  far  as  we  can  see — by  means  ;  man,  for  instance, 
by  strengthening  his  vital  forces  ;  these  forces,  by  food  supplied  by  plants  ; 
the  plants,  by  dew  and  rain  ;  this  rain,  by  the  sun — a':d  here  we  stop  :  shall  \vc 
on  this  account  at  once  pronounce  the  word,  ////mediately?  We  can  do  so  only 
as  indicating  the  undeniable  fact  that  here  no  kmnvn  means  are  applied, 
though  we  presuppose,  not  without  reason,  that  the  mediate  way  is  followed 

6  Ps.  cxlv.  15,  1 6. 


334  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

in  this  case  too.  In  order,  however,  to  lay  down  the  principle  that  God  cannot 
immediately  sustain  any  creature,  one  must  first  limit  in  an  arbitrary  manner 
His  omnipotence  and  sovereignty;  and  at  least  openly  contradict  the  testi- 
mony of  Holy  Scripture,  in  its  account,  for  instance,  of  the  sustenance  of 
the  widow  and  her  son.7  The  causal  connection  is  often  spoken  of  in  our 
day  in  a  tone  which  would  lead  one  to  suppose  that  only  during  the  last  few 
years  it  had  been  discovered  that  a  countless  series  of  causes  and  conse- 
quences connects  finite  things  ;  and  assuredly  the  language  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture differs  not  a  little  from  that  of  the  modern  view  in  this  respect.  While 
the  former  proceeds  from,  and  ends  in  God,  the  other  goes  no  farther  than 
nearer  or  more  remote  causes,  and  pursues  their  series  until  it  comes  to  a 
stand  at  an  unknown  x.  Yet  even  this  difference  involves  no  irreconcilable 
conflict,  so  long  as  we  simply  continue  to  remember  that,  as  Wolleb  has  it, 
"  providentia  causas  secundas  non  tollit,  sed  ponit."  The  Scripture  does  not 
fail  to  recognise  the  existence  of  second  causes  ;  and  reason  cannot  possibly 
explain  all  things  from  these  alone.  Thus,  even  in  the  Upholding  of  all 
things,  God  respects  the  causal  connection  appointed  by  Himself;  but  has 
in  no  case  unconditionally  bound  Himself  thereto.  Further,  the  whole 
work  of  upholding  testifies — for  him  who  traces  it  a  little  in  detail,  even 
though  it  be  only  in  a  single  domain — of  a  wisdom,  solicitude,  and  tender- 
hearted fidelity,  which  unceasingly  calls  forth  and  justifies  the  Psalmist's 
exalted  strain  of  praise.8  Especially  when  we  place  the  Upholding  of  a 
sinful  world  in  the  light  of  God's  holiness,  does  it  become  the  fruit  and 
manifestation  of  a  grace  surpassing  all  praise. 

6.  The  doctrine  of  the  Upholding  of  all  things  is  of  essential  importance 
for  the  Religious  and  Christian  life.  It  is  especially  a  powerful  counter- 
active against  any  merely  mechanical  way  of  regarding  the  world,  and  not 
less  against  that  proud  sense  of  self-sufficiency  which  is  fatal  to  a  life  in 
true  communion  with  God.  Only  a  God  who  continues  to  stand  in 
actual  relationship  to  the  world  can  we  love  and  trust ;  the  Creator  we  can 
adore,  but  only  the  Upholder  can  we  every  moment  thank,  and  from  Him 
look  for  that  which  is  wanting  in  ourselves.  For,  as  Luther  truly  says, 
"  He  is  not  like  an  architect  who,  when  he  has  built  a  house,  or  ship,  or 
other  work,  straightway  takes  his  departure  and  asks  no  more  about  it ;  but 
He  abides  with  His  work.  He  loves  the  creatures,  and  animates,  moves, 
and  sustains  them  each  one  after  its  own  fashion."  "  He  who  feeds  His 
birds,  shall  He  ever  forget  His  children  ?  "  There  is  danger  of  this  doc- 
trine being  abused,  only  when  it  is  forgotten  that  the  care  of  God  is  regu- 
larly connected  with  the  use  of  the  means  appointed  by  Him.  Properly 
used,  it  implants  a  holy  freedom  from  care,  a  deep  feeling  of  dependence, 
but  also  a  living  sense  of  obligation  to  devote  every  gift  and  power  to  the 
glorifying  of  Him  by  whom  it  is  conferred  and  preserved. 

Comp.  P.  HOFSTEDE  DE  GROOT,  Theol.  Nat.,  ed.  43.  (1861),  pp.  154—177,  and  the 
literature  there  given  ;  J.  I.  DOEDES,  Ouden  Nietnv  (1865),  pp.  44 — 48;  our  Lecrrcde  on 
the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  loth  and  5oth  Sundays,  (2nd  ed.,  1872) ;  CALVIN,  /.  /.,  i.  16. 


I  Kings  xvii.  8  -i'j.  *  i's.  x/:\vi.  5. 


THE  DIVINE  GOVERNMENT  335 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Is  the  definition  of  the  Upholding  as  a  creatio  continuata  an  absolutely  pure  one? 

Explanation  of  Acts  xvii.  25 — 28. — Is  there  still  room  for  miracles,  in  connection  with  a 
thoughtful  belief  in  the  Upholding  of  all  things  by  God? — What  attributes  of  God's 
nature  are  especially  manifested  in  the  Divine  work  of  Upholding  all  things  ? 


SECTION   LXI.— THE  DIVINE  GOVERNMENT. 

The  Government  of  all  things  is  that  operation  of  God's  will, 
whereby — as  Lord  over  His  own  works — He  sovereignly  and  freely 
controls  at  once  the  whole  organism  of  Creation  and  its  particular 
parts  ;  and  in  such  wise  makes  it  minister  to  the  accomplishment  of 
His  exalted  aims,  that  the  final  event  is  nothing  else  than  the  fulfil- 
ment of  His  eternal  counsel.  In  the  domain  of  this  Divine  Govern- 
ment an  inexorable  Fate  is  just  as  little  to  be  thought  of  as  is 
Chance,  or  mere  Will  and  Pleasure ;  all,  on  the  contrary,  is  the 
revelation  of  the  highest  freedom,  resulting  in  the  maintenance  of 
an  eternal  order.  In  the  recognition  of  such  an  independent 
Divine  Government,  faith  finds— through  the  consequent  possibility 
of  Miracles,  and  of  the  Hearing  of  Prayer — on  the  one  hand  its 
immovable  foundation,  and  on  the  other  its  natural  limit. 

1.  That  which  God  upholds,  He  at  the  same  time  controls  and  governs, 
and  so  much  is  this  latter  here  the  main  idea,  that  it  frequently  even  bears 
exclusively  the  name  of  Providence.     The  government  of  God  embraces  as 
well  Creation  in  general,  as  Man — his  experiences  and  his  actions — in  parti- 
cular.    In  this  place  we  confine  ourselves  exclusively  to  the  former,  and 
ask,  what  is  meant,  what  is  denied,  and  what  is  asserted  by  the  confession 
that  God  rules. 

2.  In  speaking  of  God's  Government,  we  say,  in  other  words,  that  God  is 
and  remains  Lord  in  His  own  creation ;  so  that  not  the  least  thing  happens 
therein  upon  which  He  did  not  count.     That  the  whole  of  Scripture  really 
teaches  such  a  Divine  Government  needs  not  to  be  proved.     The  very 
thought,  "  The  Lord  will  not  do  good,  neither  will  He  do  evil,"  is  there 
repelled  as  blasphemous,  and  the  opposite  thereof  proclaimed  in  every  way.1 
He  even,  who  does  not  believe  in  this  government,  cannot  deny  that  it  is 
taught  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament.     Equally  clear  is 
it  that  the  government  of  God  there  revealed  embraces  not  simply  the 
great  whole,  but  also  every  one  of  its  parts  ;  so  that  by  the  final  is^ie  of 


1  Ps.  xciii.,  xcvii.  ;  Isa.  xlv.  7,  sqq. 


336  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

things,  God's  counsel  is  in  no  case  made  void,  but,  on  the  contrary,  gloriously 
fulfilled.-  While  this  may  indeed  in  many  respects  appear  to  us  incompre- 
hensible, we  feel  at  once  that  the  opposite  would  be  absurdity  itself.  But 
what  here  must  be  least  of  all  overlooked  is,  that  in  the  government  of  the 
world  is  revealed  not  only  the  operation  of  God's  power,  but  also — and 
above  all —of  God's  holy  will.  The  former  is  recognised  even  from  the 
Naturalistic  standpoint,  and  the  confession  that  God  rules  signifies  on  this 
side  nothing  else  than  that,  although  there  be  temporary  interruption,  the 
eternal  order  of  na:ure  continues  to  determine  the  course  of  events  ;  for 
God  is  here  nothing  but  the  sum  of  the  powers  of  nature.  From  the 
Christian-theistic  standpoint  we  confess,  on  the  other  hand,  that  God  works 
all  things  after  the  counsel  of  His  own  will  ;8  in  other  words,  that  He  is  not 
dissolved  into,  but  rules  over,  the  work  of  His  own  hands.  Modern  Natu- 
ralism knows  only  a  God  who  is,  in  the  words  of  Heine,  "  bound  hand 
and  foot,"  and  who  "  troubles  Himself  about  nothing."  Belief  in  Revela- 
tion renders  homage  to  one  who  is  Sovereign,  alike  over  every  part  of 
the  Cosmos,  and  over  the  whole,  who  can  do  and  does  what  pleases  Him, 
after  the  counsel  of  His  own  wisdom  and  love. 

3.  If  it  is  asked  whether  we  can  triumphantly  prove  the  reality  of  such 
Divine  Government,  to  the  satisfaction  of  absolutely  every  one,  we  have  to  give 
a  negative  answer.     It  is  with  the  Government  as  with  the  Upholding  of  all 
things ;  it  cannot  be  proved,  but  simply  indicated,  and  this  even  only  under 
certain  conditions,  above  all  of  a  psychological  nature.     One  may  mention 
a  thousand  surprising  facts,    and   quivering   with   admiration,   point   out 
in  them  the  finger  of  God  ;  yet  he  who  does  not  proceed  from  a  tacit  ad- 
mission of  the  Supranaturalistic  Theistic  idea  of  God  will  nevertheless  either 
take  his  stand  at  natural  causes,  or  end  with  the  confession  of  his  ignorance, 
but  in  either  case  refuse  to  proceed   one  step  further.     In  reality  the  infer- 
ence, "  Here  God  has  intervened,"  is  in  any  case  a  transition,  a  bound  into 
another  sphere,  which  one  will  avoid,  so  long  as  he  'S  decidedly  disinclined 
to  it     But  thus  much  can  be  proved,  that  everything  impels  us  to  take  this 
bound,  that  this  alone  bears  us  to  solid  ground,  and  that  he  who  refuses  to 
take  it  gropes  in  far  denser  mist  than  we.     Certainly  he  who  does  not 
acknowledge  the  Government  of  God  in  the  sense  indicated,  is  forced  to 
believe  that  all  things  in  the  long  run  govern  themselves,  and  that  thus  the 
most  wonderful  order  is  the  natural  consequence  of — what  ?     We  esteem  it 
not  only  more  consolatory,  but  also  more  intelligent,  still  to  believe  with 
sacred  antiquity  that  there  is  even  "  no  evil  in  a  city  "  which  has  not  been 
sent  by  the  Lord  ;4  in  other  words,  that  the  course  of  events  not  only  has 
been  set  in  order  by  Him  once  for  all,  but  is  being  constantly  guided  and 
governed  by  Him. 

4.  From  this  standpoint  is  naturally  denied  the  doctrine  of  an  inexorable 
Fate — "the  interwoven  succession   of  causes ''6 — and  the  Fatalism  based 
thereupon  ;  according  to  which  everything  takes  place  by  virtue  of  a  blind 
but  inevitable  necessity  of  nature,  which  is  supe  ior  alike  to  gods  and  men. 
Fatalism  manifested  itself,  in  the  ancient  world,  now  as  Astrology,  among 


Isa.  xlvi.  10.  4  Lam.  iii.  38 ;  Amos  iii.  6. 

Ephes.  i.  II.  *  "  Series  implcxa  causarum  "  (Seneca). 


THE   DIVINE   GOVERNMENT.  337 

the  Chaldseans  ;  now  as  Philosophy,  among  the  Greeks  ;  later  as  Religion 
and  Theology,  among  the  Islamites.  Ever  again  the  old  Stoical  dilemma 
of  which  already  Cicero  speaks  :  "  If  thou  art  destined  to  recover  from 
this  sickness,  thou  wilt  recover,  whether  thou  sendest  for  the  physician  or 
not."6  This  Fatalism  is  the  natural  consequence  of  the  denial  of  Supra- 
naturalistic  Theism,  and  is  usually  associated  with  the  Pantheism  of  the 
present  day.  From  this  standpoint  the  government  of  the  world  is  "  not 
the  determination  of  the  world's  course  by  an  intellect  beyond  the  world  ; 
but  by  the  reason  immanent  in  the  powers  and  relations  of  the  world  itself " 
(Strauss).  How  any  intelligible  sense  is  to  be  attached  to  the  word 
"  reason  "  in  this  connection,  we  leave  others  to  make  out;  but  it  is  certain 
that  those  who  thus  conceive  of  the  world  would  do  infinitely  better  no 
longer  to  speak  of  Providence  and  the  Government  of  the  world.  As  with 
Materialism,  so  modern  Naturalism  can  only  by  means  of  a  happy  incon- 
sistency escape  from  the  power  of  Fatalism  with  its  theoretical  and  prac- 
tical consequences.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  a  sign  of  the  truth  and 
genuineness  of  our  Theism,  that  it  rises  to  the  honest  recognition  of  the 
Divine  freedom. 

5.  Neither  can  we  regard  as  successful  the  endeavours  which  have  been 
made — while  acknowledging  an  all-embracing  government  of  the  world  on 
the  part  of  God — to  retain  beside  this  an  independent  place  for  Chance 
(for tuna)  properly  so  called.     The  attempt  has  been  made,  e.g.,  by  Ebrard, 
to  point  out  a  region  of  objective  contingency,  for  instance,  in  the  domain 
of  meteorology  or  of  botany ;    and   certainly   we   cannot   here  speak   of 
caprice,  or  the  relative  freedom  of  living  creatures,  such  as  is  to  be  ob- 
served, for  example,  in  the  animal  world.     It  is  easy  to  mention  a  number 
of  events  which  take  place,  and  which  one  supposes  could  as  well  not  have 
taken  place,  or  have  taken  place  in  an  entirely  different  manner.     But  it 
very  soon  becomes  apparent  that  this  multitude  of  so-called  casual  and 
accidental  events  and  conditions  is  to  be  observed,  not  only  in  the  lower 
spheres,  but  also  in  the  higher ;  and  that  a  realm  of  actual  contingencies, 
be  it  larger  or  smaller,  would  destroy  the  unity  of  creation,  perhaps  even 
render  impossible  the  development  and  execution  of  God's  counsel.     Holy 
Scripture,  moreover,  most  distinctly  denies  the  existence  of  such  a  series  of 
absolutely  contingent  events,7  and  to  be  consistent  one  must  assert  that 
either  all  or  nothing  is  accidental.     The  whole  idea  of  chance  has  a  simply 
subjective  significance,  and  must  be  regarded  exclusively  as  the  fruit  of  the 
narrowness  of  the '  human  range  of  vision.     It  is  true,  so-called  accidents 
are  frequently  of  such  overwhelming  influence,  that  the  well-known  expres- 
sion, "  Accident  rules  the  world,"  may  appear  wholly  justified.     But  in 
reality  there  is  no  other  contingency  than  in  the  sense  in  which  the  whole 
world  must  be  called  contingent  (contingens) ;  nothing  is  isolated, — all  stands 
and  serves  in  its  own  place.     Unbelief  speaks  of  blind  Fortune,  faith  con- 
fesses "  Nothing  by  accident,  and  nothing  without  an  aim." 

6.  And  thus  also  no  mere  Will  and  Pleasure.     In  maintaining  the  doc- 

8  Si  fatum  tibi  est,  ex  hoc  morbo  convalescere,  sive  Medicum  adhibueris,  sive  non,  con- 
valesces (Cicero,  De  Fato). 
7  Prov.  xvi.  33 ;  Matt.  x.  29. 

2 


338  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

trine  of  the  Government  of  the  world,  we  maintain  also  the  freedom  of 
God,  as  the  infinite  capacity  for  Himself  determining  His  actions  in  -such  a 
way  as  is  demanded  by,  and  is  in  harmony  with,  His  morally-perfect  nature. 
How  far,  at  the  same  time,  this  freedom  is  removed  from  that  which  is 
usually  termed  caprice,  we  have  already  pointed  out  (§  xlix.  5).  Here 
we  would  only  remind  the  reader  that  the  last-named  idea,  instead  of  exalt- 
ing God,  degrades  Him  as  deeply  as  possible.  For  all  caprice  is  the  play 
of  humour,  without  one's  taking  counsel  of  anything  but  this,  and  reveals  a 
being  who  does  not  govern  his  own  will,  but  allows  himself  to  be  governed 
by  his  will.  If — to  bring  the  question  actually  into  connection  with  this 
point — no  other  view  of  the  world  were  possible  than  that  which  rests  upon 
the  presupposition  of  arbitrary  will,  we  ourselves  should  be  the  first  to 
reject  that  view  as  absurd. 

7.  In  point  of  fact,  however,  we  see  belief  in  Miracles  and  in  the  Hearing 
of  Prayer  legitimated  precisely  by  the  acknowledgment  of  God's  govern- 
ment of  the  world.  It  can  be  no  matter  of  surprise  to  us  that  the  twofold 
question  here  raised — although  upon  a  superficial  view  belonging  to  another 
province — is  by  many  treated  of  in  immediate  connection  with  the  Provi- 
dence of  God  ;  in  reality  it  forms  only  a  subordinate  part  of  this  vast 
whole.  As  far  as  miracle  is  concerned,  we  have  already  learnt  to  recognise 
it  as  an  extraordinary  and  direct — but  not  on  that  account  by  any  means 
arbitrary — operation  and  intervention  of  God  in  the  course  of  finite  things 
(§  xxxii.  i.  5).  And  now  of  two  things  one  :  Either  the  law  of  nature 
and  the  will  of  God  is  absolutely  the  same  thing,  and  then  let  us  be  con- 
sistent Pantheists  ;  or  the  two  are  distinct,  and  then  at  least  the  possibility 
of  miracles  is  assured.  He  who  in  his  heart  says  to  the  Infinite  One, 
"  Thou  canst  not  upon  any  single  point  of  Creation  suspend  the  law  of  gravity 
ordained  by  Thee ;  Thou  canst  not  direct  a  single  ray  of  light  otherwise 
than  is  prescribed  in  Thine  own  laws ;  Thou  canst  not  avert  from  me  any 
disaster  which  must  befal  me  in  the  ordinary  course  of  things," — this  man 
believes  not  in  a  Personal  God.  It  is  thus  not  enough  that  one  should  be 
willing  to  admit  the  possibility  of  miracles;  no,  it  must  be  joyfully  assented 
to,  not  as  questionable  fact,  but  as  a  matter  on  account  of  which  to  glorify 
God.  He  who  regards  a  miracle  as  inconceivable,  maintains,  not  the  un- 
changeableness  of  God,  but  His  rigid  immobility;  and  forbids  Him,  in  the 
name  of  his  logic,  even  the  slightest  manifestation  of  grace.  "  The  action 
of  the  laws  of  nature  is  ruled  by  God ;  they  are  in  His  power,  and  are  so 
elastic  that  He  can  by  means  of  them  take  away  at  any  moment  the  exist- 
ence of  every  being  in  the  world"  (Rothe). — If  this  is  the  case,  there  is 
thus  also  no  reason  for  doubting  the  possibility  of  the  answering  of  prayer 
in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word  ;  i.e.,  not  simply  of  a  psychological  effect 
of  prayer,  but  also  a  metaphysical  one  (§  xxvii.  5),  in  consequence  of 
which  God  grants,  in  accordance  with  and  through  prayer,  in  particular 
circumstances,  particular  issues  willed  by  Him.  The  mystery  of  the  answer- 
ing of  prayer  is,  in  other  words,  that  of  freedom  in  the  presence  of  an  order 
which  is  eternal,  but  not  on  that  account  a  rigid  order.  Just  as  man's  own 
actions  (§  Ixii.),  so  must  his  prayers,  be  regarded  as  a  factor  in  the  hand 
of  God's  government  of  the  world.  Whether  God  will  and  ought  to  hear 
a  particular  prayer,  and  for  what  reason  so  frequently  the  very  opposite 


THE  DIVINE  GOVERNMENT.  339 

takes  place,  is  a  question  which  may  here  safely  remain  unanswered.  It  is 
enough  if  the  possibility  is  assented  to,  that  God,  if  He  pleases,  can  do, 
also  in  answer  to  prayer,  beyond  not  only  our  asking,  but  even  our  thinking 
That  the  Scripture  everywhere  presupposes,  not  only  the  possibility,  but  also 
the  absolute  certainty  of  His  doing  so,  is  evident  as  well  from  other  places 
as,  more  particularly,  from  those  in  which  it  so  frequently  enjoins  the  duty 
of  intercession  for  others,  of  which  there  can  be  no  serious  thought  from  a 
Naturalistic  point  of  view.  From  that  standpoint  all  the  force  in  the  well- 
known  maxim,  "Ora  d  labora"  falls  more  and  more  upon  the  last  member 
alone. 

8.  On  the  other  hand,  belief  in  miracles  and  the  answering  of  prayer 
finds  here  its  ineffaceable  limit.  God  can  do  all  that  He  wills,  but  He 
cannot  will  all  that  is  possible.  Miracles  are  conceivable  which  cannot 
take  place  ;  prayers,  which  cannot  be  answered,  because — although  possible 
in  the  abstract — they  are  morally  impossible.  The  causal  connection  is 
not  indeed  the  chain  by  which  God  has  bound  Himself,  but  it  is  the  sys- 
tematic order  in  which  He  wills  that  things  should  present  themselves.  De- 
parture therefrom  is  conceivable  only  in  the  interests  of  the  moral  order  of 
the  world,  because  this  is  the  higher.  The  concr  e  possibility  of  miracles 
thus  exists  solely  where  it  is  possible  that  a  holy  and  gracious  God  can 
will  this.  The  same  must  be  said  of  the  granting  of  particular  wishes  and 
prayers ;  on  this  account  also  the  petition,  "  Thy  will  be  done,"  remains 
in  every  case  the  final  and  deepest  utterance  of  the  devout  spirit.  Where, 
however,  the  moral  conditions  of  being  heard  are  present,  the  possibility 
thereof  in  particular  cases  cannot  seriously  be  doubted,  or  one  will  very 
soon  learn  no  longer  to  pray  in  time  of  distress,  and  when  it  is  over  will  be 
ready  indeed  to  congratulate  himself,  but  will  no  longer  give  thanks  from 
the  heart ;  for  who  thanks  a  blind  course  of  nature  ?  Order  is  something 
glorious  and  sacred  ;  but  only  where  ///,  and  beside,  and  if  necessary  above 
Order,  is  recognised  the  Freedom  of  God,  can  one  continue  to  speak  of  an 
adorable  Government  of  God. 

Compare,  besides  the  literature  referred  to,  page  135,  and  ?  lix.,  A.  T.  REITSMA,  Voor 
en  tegen  de  moderns  Theologie  (1861)  ;  E.  GUEDER,  Ueberdas  Wunder  (1868) ;  O.  FLUEGEL, 
Das  Wunder  und  die  Erkmnbarkeit  Gottes  (1870) ;  ROTHE,  Dogm.  (1870),  i.,  §  xlvii. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Is  there  sufficient  ground  for  actually  distinguishing  the  Government  of  all  things  from 
the  Upholding  of  all  things? — The  opposition  between  the  Supranaturalistic  and  the 
Naturalistic  conception  of  Government  of  the  world. — Fatalism  in  its  different  forms. — 
The  conception  of  the  fortuitous  more  nearly  criticised.  —  To  what  extent  may  the 
objections  to  the  doctrine  of  a  particular  answer  to  prayer  be  satisfactorily  solved? 


Z  2 


340  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

SECTION   LXII. — THE  DIVINE  GOVERNMENT. 
(Continuation.') 

As  the  Divine  Government  extends  to  the  whole  Creation,  so 
does  it  most  definitely  extend  to  the  life,  the  experiences,  and  deeds 
of  men  ;  which  are  either  willed  or  permitted  by  God,  but  in  either 
case  are  to  be  regarded  as  links  in  the  chain  of  His  adorable  plan 
of  the  world.  Thus  the  history  of  Mankind  becomes  alike  the 
work  and  the  ministry  of  God's  Providence  ;  without,  however,  the 
freedom  of  the  individual  man  being  thereby  annihilated.  The 
decree  of  God,  on  the  contrary,  provides  for  the  free  action  of  man 
r.s  a  rational  and  moral  being ;  and  the  science  of  faith  justly 
rejects  every  mode  of  conception  whereby  one  of  the  two  factors 
of  the  world's  history  is  degraded  to  a  purely  imaginary  power, 
and  the  utterance,  either  of  the  religious  or  of  the  moral  feeling,  is 
denied. 

1.  What  has  hitherto  been  taught  as  to  God's  government  in  general, 
has  naturally  its  more  particular  application  to  the  world  of  men,  as  the 
theatre  and  workplace  of  the  Providence  of  God.     Yet  as  well  the  im- 
portance as  the  difficulty  of  the  subject  demands  that  we  should  devote 
some  time  to  the  special  study  thereof. 

2.  That  the  government  of  God,  while  extending  to  all  things,  espe- 
cially extends  to  man  and  humanity,  is  beyond  all   doubt.     Even   the 
unique  place  which  man  occupies  in  creation,  leads  us  to  suppose  that  he 
is  the  special  object  of  Divine  providence.1     Moreover,  the  peculiar  con- 
stitution of  man,  as  a  rational  and  moral  being,  renders  especial  guidance 
necessary.     The  material  world  is  the  domain  of  necessity,  regulated  by 
eternal  laws ;   the  moral,  that  of  freedom,  conferred  by  God  Himself,  but 
precisely  on  that  account  also  to  be  guided  by  God  Himself.     History  and 
experience  moreover  constantly  afford  us  the  most  striking  proofs  that  "  the 
way  of  man  is  not  in  himself."2    It  is  sufficient  here   to  mention  the  names 
of  a  Joseph,  a  Moses,  a  David.     No  one's  career  is  seen  in  the  long  run 
to  be  entirely  his  own  work ;  and  the  sense  of  unlimited  dependence,  con- 
fessed by  the  most  illustrious  men,8  is  not  simply  the  utterance  of  pious 
feeling,  but  the  fruit  of  an  attentive  observance  of  life. 

3.  The  limits  of  this  domain  of  Providence  necessarily  extend  as  well  to 
the  fate,  as  to  the  acts  of  men.     Birthplace  and  sphere  of  labour,4  good  and 
evil  in  our  lot,5  length  of  life,  and  manner  of  death,6  all  is  determined  by 

1  Matt.  vi.  25 — 32.  *  Acts  xvii.  26. 

2  Jer.  x.  23.  *  Job  ii.  10. 

1  Ps.  cxxvii.  I ;  Heb.  vi.  3 ;  James  iv.  15.  •  Dan.  v.  23 ;  Acts  xiii.  36. 


THE  DIVINE  GOVERNMENT.  341 

higher  wisdom.  [In  the  Standards  also  of  the  Netherlands  Reformed 
Church  the  same  thing  is  expressed.7]  In  like  manner,  according  to  the 
constant  teaching  of  Holy  Scripture,  have  we  to  recognise  the  hand  of  God 
as  well  in  the  good  as  in  the  evil  that  is  wrought  by  men.8 

4.  Yet  it  will  soon  become  apparent,  upon  a  little  reflection,  that  God's 
government  does  not  stand  entirely  in  the  same  relation  to  the  acts,  as  to 
the  experience  of  men.     Where  man  experiences  anything,  be  it  pleasant 
or  unpleasant,  he  is  usually  passive ;  where,  on  the  other  hand,  he  effects 
something,   he   shows   himself  acting  just  as   he   himself  chooses ;  and 
the   great   question  with   which  we  have  here  to  do,  thus  becomes  the 
question  as  to  the  connection  between  the  guidance  of  Providence  and 
the  so-called  free  activity  of  men :  a  question  indeed  of  the  first  impor- 
tance in  regard  to  the  whole  domain  of  religion  and  morality,  but  at  the 
same  time — from  the  nature  of  the  case — so  intricate,  that  here,  least  of  all, 
will  it  be  out  of  place  to  remind  the  inquirer  that  we  must  be  content,  "  if 
we  are  disciples  of  Christ,  to  learn  that  alone  which  He  points  out  to  us 
in  His  Word,  without  overstepping  these  limits"   (Netherlands  Confession). 
If  even  in  this  way  no  absolutely  complete  solution  is  to  be  expected,  yet 
we  need  not  wholly  grope  in  the  dark,  provided  only  we  regard  the  great 
problem  from  a  Christian  Theistic  standpoint,  in  the  combined  light  of  Holy 
Scripture  and  of  the  experience  of  a  spiritual  life. 

5.  As  well  natural  evil,  that  of  suffering,  as  spiritual  evil,  that  of  sin, 
takes  place  under  the  control  of  Providence.     Nevertheless,  as  we  have 
already  begun   to  observe,  this  government  stands  in  by  no  means  the 
same    relation  to  the  one  as  to    the  other.      God   may    in  His   wisdom 
will  (i.e.,  approve)  that  I  should  endure  the  severest  sufferings;    but  He 
can  never  will  (approve)  that  I  should  commit  the  smallest  sin ;  since  He, 
the  All-wise,  is  also  the   Holy  and  Righteous  One.     God  is  not  only  the 
highest  causality,  but  at  the  same  time  the  highest  possible  moral  perfec- 
tion.    The  evil  apprehended  by  the  senses,  however  painful,  may  be  a 
relative  good ;  moral  evil,  however  specious,  remains  unconditionally  evil, 
and  the  two  cannot  possibly  proceed  in  the  same  sense  from  the  Infinite 
One. 

6.  Moral  evil,  moreover,  cannot  possibly  be  willed  of  God,  in  the  same 
sense  as  moral  good.     He  unconditionally  wills  the  latter,  and  where,  in 
this  way  anything  good  is  performed,  from  Him  is  the  opportunity,  the 
desire,  the  power,    and   the    blessing.     But   who    can  have  the   courage 
seriously  to  repeat  all  this  of  that   which  is  morally  evil  ?     Only  he  who 
forgets  to  regard  evil  in  the  light  in  which  it  must  above  all  be  regarded, 
in  the  infallible  light  of  conscience.     Loudly  does  the  conscience  proclaim 
that  sin  renders  us  guilty  and  deserving  of  punishment ;  but  also  that  God 
cannot   therefore   possibly  will   that   which    He    Himself  condemns   and 
punishes.     Notwithstanding  all  the  difficulties  which  present  themselves  for 
our  thought  in  connection  with  a  sharp  line  of  distinction  between   the 

permitting,  and  the    will  of  God,   this  distinction  must  be   emphatically 
maintained  in  the  study  of  the  present  question,  and  that  in  the  interest, 

7  Confessio  Bdgica,  Art.  xiii.  ;  Heidelb.  Catech.,  answer  27. 
9  PhiL  ii.  13  j  Acts  iv.  27,  28. 


342  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

alike  of  a  pure  Christian  conception  of  God,  and  of  the  positive  demand 
of  the  conscience.  On  this  account,  as  early  as  the  time  of  Augustine,  it 
was  declared,  "  nothing  takes  place  without  the  Almighty  One  willing  it, 
either  by  suffering  it  to  be  done,  or  by  Himself  doing  it."9  God  allows  the 
evil  to  take  place,  but  He  does  not  on  that  account  will  (approve)  that 
which  in  long-suffering  He  endures.  In  no  case  can  He  have  willed  moral 
evil  in  itself,  not  even  as  a  means  of  bringing  about  the  morally  good — 
unless  we  should  dare  to  apply  to  Him  the  word  of  the  Apostle  in  Rom. 
iii.  8 — but  He  can  only,  where  it  has  already  arisen  and  continues  to  exist, 
take  it  up  as  a  link  in  the  chain  of  His  plan  of  the  world.10  To  the  ques- 
tion :  Whence,  nevertheless,  moral  evil  ?  no  answer  can  be  given,  except 
that  what  God  absolutely  wills  not,  but,  on  the  contrary,  hates  and  punishes, 
He  could  not  wholly  have  prevented,  without  annihilating  that  human  freedom, 
willed  and  conferred  by  Himself.  When  He  has  once — we  shall  return  to 
this  subject  presently — when  He  has  once  conferred  upon  man  the  perilous 
privilege  of  comparatively  free  self-determination,  Omnipotence  itself  cannot 
arrest  the  consequences  of  this  gift,  without  at  the  same  time  destroying  its 
own  work.  God  wills  the  good  unconditionally  ;  but  only  the  good  volun- 
tarily wrought,  because  without  that,  it  does  not  deserve  the  name  of  moral 
good.  Where  now  freedom  of  choice  is  given,  the  possibility  of  resistance 
is  also  granted.  We  may,  for  this  reason,  speak  in  a  very  sound  sense  of 
God's  self-limitation  by  the  creation  of  rational  and  moral  beings,  provided 
we  never  forget  that  this  self-limitation  is  a  relative  and  voluntary  one,  and 
in  the  end  conducive  to  a  higher  self-manifestation.  God  can  do  all  that 
He  will,  but  does  not  on  that  account  will  all  that  in  the  abstract  He  can 
do.  Voltaire's  word  of  unbelief  and  mockery,  "We  are  the  puppets  of 
Providence,"11  is  equally  dishonouring  to  Him  as  to  man.  He  did  not  desire 
Automata,  because  He  wished  to  found  a  moral  kingdom ;  but  this  freedom 
conceded  to  a  finite  being,  brings  in  of  itself  the  possibility  of  an  abuse  of 
freedom,  which  He  at  most  can  only  endure,  but  never  enjoin. 

7.  Moral  evil,  just  as  little  willed  by  God  as  by  irresistible  force  pre- 
vented, was  by  Him  foreseen,  permitted,  and  in  various  ways  limited. 
Here  especially  it  is  of  importance  not  to  lose  sight  of  the  important  dis- 
tinction between  the  Foreknowledge  and  the  Decree  of  God.  However 
closely  connected,  even  in  the  language  of  the  New  Testament,  they  are 
yet  by  no  means  the  same.  All  that  is  an  object  of  God's  decree  is 
naturally  an  object  also  of  His  foreknowledge;  but  we  cannot  on  that 
account  say  that  God  has  thus  unconditionally  willed  all  that  He  has  fore- 
seen. It  is  easy  to  speak  of  this  whole  distinction  as  baseless  and  arbitrary, 
but  one  must  surely  know  that  he  who  without  any  restriction  rejects  it, 
makes  God  the  author  of  sin,  yea,  the  sinner,  (car  efox^.  At  such  a  price, 
we  confess,  the  logical  unity  of  our  reasoning  in  this  domain  seems  to  us 
too  dearly  bought,  since  the  entire  destruction  of  morality  would  thus  become 
inevitable.  He  who  has  once  discovered  this  secret  of  Intellectualism, 

9  "  Non  fit  aliquid,  nisi  Omnipotens  velit,  vel  sinendo  ut  fiat,  vel  ipse  faciendo"  (Aug.) 
Compare  Ps.  Ixxxi.  II,  12;  Rom.  i.  24 — 28. 

10  James  i.  13. 

11  "  Nous  sommes  les  marionettes  de  la  Providence." 


THE   DIVINE   GOVERNMENT. 


343 


that  the  whole  notion  of  sin  has  for  God  no  objective  significance,  would 
be  folly  incarnate  if  he  should  be  concerned  for  a  single  moment  about  a 
single  sin  ;  his  so-called  repentance  becomes  an  ungrateful  and  unbelieving 
failure  to  recognise  the  inevitable  ordination  of  God  with  regard  to  the 
world,  to  which  it  would  be  far  better  to  resign  oneself  without  contradic- 
tion. He  who  shrinks  from  this  immoral  conclusion  must  admit  that 
God  may  have  foreseen  a  fact  or  action,  without  having  on  this  account 
determined  or  ordained  it.  The  act  does  not  in  this  case  take  place 
because  it  is  foreseen,  but  it  is  foreseen  because  as  a  free  action  it  will 
take  place.  It  is  permitted  without  hindrance ;  but  permission  and  fore- 
ordination  are  two  different  things.  As  soon  as  this  is  overlooked,  the  idea 
of  causality  necessarily  gives  place  to  that  of  fatality ;  and  one  passes  over 
the  bridge  of  Monism  into  the  open  arms  of  Pantheism. 

Scripture  also  everywhere  presupposes  and  proclaims  that  that  which  is 
evil,  not  only  ought  to  have  been  different,  but  also  could  have  been  so. 
For  him  who  denies  this,  places  like  Ps.  Ixxxi.  13;  Matt.  xi.  20-24;  xxiii. 
37;  Luke  xix.  41.  42,  are  absolutely  inexplicable.  The  most  orthodox 
Theologians  of  the  Reformed  Church  also,  both  in  earlier  and  later  times, 
have  admitted  the  relative  justice  of  the  idea  of  permission  ;  while  others, 
spite  of  themselves,  have  been  compelled  very  soon  to  call  to  their  help 
again  that  which  they  had  at  first  rejected.  Hence  the  dogmatic  distinc- 
tion between  voluntas  efficicns  and permittens  ;  the  conception  of  the permissio 
in  the  sense  of  non  itnpeditio,  not  actio  but  abstinentia  ab  actione.  Well 
known  indeed  and  generally  assented  to  are  the  words  of  Calvin  :  "  Cadit 
Adam,  modcrante  divina  Providcntia,  sed  suo  vitio  cadit"  u  Even  Augustine 
declared  with  regard  to  the  Divine  will :  "  Non  sic  tamen  utiis  (=Jiominibus) 
adimat  liberum  arbitriitm,  quo  vel  bene  v el mal ententes,  justissime  judiccntur"13 
From  these  citations  it  becomes  apparent  with  what  slight  show  of  justice 
Determinism  is  placed  by  many  in  the  present  day  without  reserve 
upon  a  level  with  the  doctrine  of  Predestination  as  held  by  the  Reformed 
Church.  According  to  the  doctrine  alike  of  Scripture  and  of  the  Church, 
man  must  be  held  responsible,  not  indeed  for  his  destiny,  but  certainly  for 
his  own  acts.  How  far  indeed  God  is  from  willing  evil  as  such,  is  evident 
from  the  undeniable  fact,  that,  on  the  contrary,  He — as  is  proved  by  a 
number  of  witnesses  in  the  sacred  history  14 — in  various  ways  restrains  it ; 
and  to  this  fact  the  conscience  of  every  one  bears  testimony. 

8.  The  evil  which  God  in  His  prescience  foresees,  and — where  He  does 
not  restrain  it — in  His  long-suffering  endures,  is  by  His  righteousness 
punished,  and  by  His  wisdom  and  love  made  to  work  together  for  good. 
To  such  an  extent  it  may  be  said  that  God  wills  the  sin,  in  so  far  as,  where 
it  already  exists,  He  employs  it  as  a  means  of  punishment  and  discipline," 
and  constantly  so  directs  its  course  as  that  it  shall  ultimately  subserve  the 
cause  of  that  which  is  good.  The  experience  of  Joseph,  with  regard  to  his 

12  "  Adam's  fall  was  under  the  control  of  Divine  Providence,  but  nevertheless  he  fell  by 
his  man  fault, " 

13  "Not,  however,  in  such  a  way  as  to  deprive  them,  i.e.,  mankind,  of  free-will,  in 
regard  to  which — as  they  use  it  well  or  badly — they  will  be  most  righteously  judged." 

•4  Gen.  xx.  6 ;  xxxi.  24 ;  xxxvii.  22  ;  I  Sam.  xxv.  32 — 34. 
^Rom.  i.  24—28 


344  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

brethren,  is  constantly  repeated  in  a  variety  of  forms.16  Naturally  the 
immoral  character  of  the  action  itself  is  not  thereby  changed.  For  the 
merit  of  an  action  is  never  determined  by  the  result,  which  usually  lies 
beyond  our  control,  but  by  its  principle  and  its  motive  alone.  Peccatum  per 
se,  sc.  natura  sud,  Deum  qfficit  contumelia,  glories  autem  Dei  inservit  per 
accidens  " 17  (Ursinus).  The  rejection  of  Christ  remains  in  itself  the  most 
terrible  sin  :  but  nevertheless  there  is  brought  in  precisely  thereby  the 
highest  blessing,  salvation  for  a  lost  world. 

9.  In  no  case  is  there  cause  to  fear  that,  where  thus  relative  freedom  is 
left  to  man,  it  will  ultimately  be  in  his  power  to  frustrate  God's  plan  of  the 
world.     For  the  evil  bears  in  its  own  bosom  the  seeds  of  disunion  and 
dissolution,18  and  finds  to  this  extent  alike  its  curb  and  its  corrective  in 
itself.     The  good,  on  the  other  hand,  has  in  itself  a  principle  of  life  and 
incorruptibility,  and  comes  to  the  desired  development  through  its  very 
conflict  with  evil.     But,  the  case  being  so,  there  can  also  be  no  doubt  but 
the  result  of  the  world's  history  will — under  the  guidance  of  the  spotlessly 
Holy  One — be  the  triumph,  not  of  the  evil,   but  of  the  morally  good. 
Although  the  possibility  of  an  everlasting  resistance  against  God  cannot  be 
denied,19  yet  the  dominion  of  evil  as  a  hostile  power  in  the  Kingdom  of 
God  will  be  ultimately  annihilated  ;  while,  so  long  as  it  yet  continues,  it  is 
compelled  to  become  subservient  to  the  cause  of  the  good,  even  where  for 
a  time  it  is  hurtful  to  it.  The  evil  has  its  time ;  the  good,  time  and  eternity 
before  it ;  since  Gcd  and  the  good  is  one.     To  such  an  extent — but  also 
to  such  an  extent  only — can  the  believing  Christian,  in  looking  back  upon 
former  wanderings,  reckon  these  also  among  the  things  which  God  has 
made  to  work  together  for  good,20  and  even  the   •'  O  felix  ciilpa"^  of  the 
Christian  Father  has  its  deep  significance  ;  although  a  deed,  concerning 
which  faith  acknowledges  that  it  has  been  unexpectedly  overruled  for  good, 
is  nevertheless  constantly  condemned  by  the  conscience  as  something  evil, 
upon  which  conscience  looks  back  not  without  the  deepest  shame.     An 
example  of  this  is  Paul,  where  shortly  before  his  death  he  looks  back  upon 
his  blindness  and  his  conversion.22 

10.  This  triumph,  however,  of  the  good  over  the  bad  is  wrought  by  God, 
without  His  degrading  man  to  the  level  of  a  mere  instrument,  and  in  this 
special  feature  is  revealed  the  glcry  of  His  government  of  the  world.     It  is 
true  the  freedom  of  man  is  on  all  sides  limited  by  God ;  the  freedom  of 
choice  is  subject  to  manifold  influences,  of  which  not  one  is  exerted  without 
a  higher  guidance ;  and  even  where  the  act  of  choice  is  free,  the  freedom 
of  action  is  frequently  limited  by  circumstances  of  which  the  number  and  the 
bearing  lies  wholly  beyond  the  domain  of  human  calculation.     But  limited 

16  Gen.  1.  20 ;  comp.  Acts  iv.  27,  28 ;  viii.  I — 4 ;  Phil.  i.  12 — 14. 

17  "Sin  of  itself,  i.e.,  by  its  own  nature,  dishonours  God;  it  is  only  by  that  which  is 
non-essential  to  it  that  it  brings  glory  to  Him." 

18  Matt.  xii.  25. 

19  Matt.  xii.  32. 

20  Rom.  viii.  28. 

21  Augustine's  exclamation  in  reference  to  the  fall:  "O  happy  transgression,  which 
called  forth  so  great  a  Redeemer  ! " 

33  I  Tim.  i.  13—16. 


THE  DIVIXE  GOVERNMENT.  345 

freedom  is  after  all  by  no  means  unfreedom  and  compulsion,  and  man  has 
in  reality  the  perilous  privilege  of  being  able  to  will  or  do  that  which  God 
wills  not,  but  forbids.  Yet  precisely  in  this  fact  is  apparent  the  sovereignty, 
and  at  the  same  time  the  wisdom  and  compassion,  of  God,  that  even 
out  of  the  snares  of  evil,  into  which  the  sinner  falls,  He  weaves  together 
the  threads  into  the  texture  of  His  government  of  the  world.  God 
does  not,  as  it  were,  annihilate  sin  at  a  blow,  but  allows  it  to  annihilate 
itself  after  it  has  fulfilled  its  bond-service  in  the  kingdom  of  freedom. 
"  Inasmuch  as  God  has  willed  freedom,  He  has  willed  also  the  possibility 
of  sin  ;  but  this  only  because  the  impossibility  of  sin,  which  exists  in  Him- 
self, must  also  be  developed  in  the  free  agents  whom  He  has  called  to  His 
kingdom  of  love,  by  a  free  determination  of  choice  made  in  His  strength 
and  grace  "  (Lange).  For  the  determinist  we  feel  that  there  can  be,  properly 
speaking,  no  question  of  a  revelation  of  God's  glory.  For  from  this  stand- 
point God  is  no  longer  the  Supreme  Will,  at  every  moment  directing  all 
things,  but  the  Supreme  Power,  from  eternity  deciding,  or  rather  having 
decided,  all  things,  which  carries  out  its  own  decree,  or,  more  properly 
speaking,  has  nothing  to  direct,  because  all  is  already  fixed.  The  conse" 
quence  in  the  sphere  of  morals  is  self-evident,  and  cannot  be  escaped,  so 
long  as  one  is  not  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  an  abstract  logical 
Intellectualism.  Even  where  this  tendency  presents  itself  as  an  Ethical 
determinism,  we  can  only  regard  the  matter  as  essentially  the  same. 
Ethical  determinism  is,  properly  regarded,  just  as  inconceivable  as  wooden 
iron,  or  a  square  circle.  He  who  truly  takes  his  start  from  an  Ethical 
principle  must  recognise  the  right  of  a  relatively  free  self-determination  ; 
but  at  the  same  time  maintain  that  God  realises  His  plan  with  regard  to 
the  world,  notwithstanding,  or  rather  by  means  of,  the  unfettered  actions 
of  men,  and  herein  brings  about  the  triumph  of  that  manifold  wisdom 
spoken  of  in  Ephesians  iii.  10. 

ii.  We  must,  after  what  has  been  said,  conclude  that  the  precise 
formula  for  the  defining  of  the  connection  between  Divine  causality  and 
human  freedom  has  not  yet  been  discovered.  Nothing  is  easier  than,  pro- 
ceeding from  the  Theological  principle,  to  deny  the  freedom  of  man  ;  or, 
choosing  Anthropology  as  a  starting-point,  to  limit  the  sovereignty  of  God : 
but  the  exact  boundary-line  between  the  one  domain  and  the  other  can  be 
drawn  only  in  thought.  For  we  have  here  to  take  into  account,  as  well 
that  which  we  believe  in  regard  to  God,  as  that  which  we  discover  in  our- 
selves ;  and  it  has  been  said,  not  without  reason,  even  the  liberty  of 
man  is  not  less  entirely  an  object  of  belief  than  Providence  itself.  In 
thought  we  can  continue  indefinitely  the  two  lines — human  and  Divine — 
without  their  meeting ;  it  is  only  in  actual  life  that  we  meet  with  points  at 
which  they  ever  again  touch ;  and  while  perfect  harmony  assuredly  exists 
for  the  knowledge  of  God,  it  exists  only  for  the  faith  of  man.  Yet  it 
must  be  by  no  means  overlooked  that  autonomy  in  the  domain  of  thought 
does  not  present  an  insoluble  difficulty  in  the  domain  of  spiritual  experience. 
The  more  man  lives  in  communion  with  God,  the  more  the  opposition 
between  Liberty  and  Necessity  is  resolved  into  a  higher  harmony.  In  the 
Son  of  man  we  see  liberty  manifest  itself  in  the  form  of  voluntary  depend- 
ence;  and  the  more  one  is  led  by  His  spirit,  the  less  will  he  speak  of 


346  CHRISTIAN    DOGMATICS. 

freedom  beyond  and  as  distinguished  from  God,  or  regard  dependence 
upon  Him  as  incompatible  in  principle  with  a  rightly  defined  liberty.  Tne 
assertion  therefore  has  perhaps  been  too  strong,  when  it  has  been  said 
that  the  higher  unity  of  the  two  factors  is  absolutely  undiscoverable.  That 
it  has,  however,  up  to  the  present  time  been  sought  in  vain,  is  apparent 
from  the  ever-varying  conflict  waged  on  this  domain — a  conflict  which  only 
temporarily  ceases,  and  which,  with  any  knowledge  of  the  extent  and  depth 
of  the  difference,  cannot  in  the  least  surprise  us. 

Compare  the  Articles  Freikeit,  Vorsehung,  Zulassung,  in  Herzog's  R.  E. ;  J.  H.  A. 
EBRAR  ,  Das  Verhaltniss  der  Reform.  Dogm.  zuin  Deterministnus  (1849);  J-  H. 
SCHOLTEN,  Devrijewil,  Krit.  Onderz.  (1859) ;  N.  C.  KlST,  De  mensch,  een  redelijk  en 
zedelijk  vrijwerkend  wezen  (1859);  D.  KOORDERS,  Het  Determinisms  der  Leidsche  School 
(1859) ;  ROORDA,  De  vrijh.  van  den  mensch;  Dr.  Ph.  J.  HOEDEMAKER,  Het  Problettn 
der  vrijheid  en  het  Theistisch  Godsbegrip  (1867);  J.  CRAMER,  Het  bei-ouw  en  het  ethisch 
deter minisme  (1868) ;  S.  HoEKSTRA,  Vrijheid,  in  verb,  met  zeljbew.  zedelijkh.  en  zonde 
(1858). 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Nearer  distinction  between  the  Divine  government,  with  regard  to  the  experiences 
and  to  the  acts  of  men. — Has  the  notion  of  natural  and  moral  evil  merely  a  subjective, 
or  also  objective,  significance? — Nearer  determining  and  defence  of  the  doctrine  of  Divine 
permission. —Difference  and  connection  between  foreknowledge  and  fore-ordination. 
— The  distinction  between  freedom  of  will  and  freedom  of  action. — The  theory  of  the 
modern  psychological  and  ethical  Determinism,  as  compared  with  that  of  Calvinism. — Is 
one  not  absolutely  compelled,  from  a  Biblical  standpoint,  to  be  unreservedly  a  determin:st  ? 
— Sense  and  force  of  Rom.  viii.  28,  and  such-like  passages. — Does  the  government  of 
God  stand  entirely  in  the  same  relation  to  the  free  actions  of  all  men  ? 


SECTION   LXIll. — THE  THEODIC^E. 

With  all  its  sublimity,  the  government  of  Providence  displays 
enigmatical  sides  enough  to  call  forth  ever  new  attempts  for  its 
justification,  in  opposition  to  so  many  forms  of  objection  raised 
against  it.  This  Theodicee,  attempted  at  all  times  with  various 
results,  can  be  crowned  with  a  comparative  and  satisfactory  degree 
of  success  only  where  it  is  undertaken  from  the  standpoint  of  belief 
in  the  Christian  revelation.  Even  from  this  standpoint,  however,  a 
complete  Theodicee  is  not  attainable,  and  at  the  same  time  is  not 
actually  necessary.  The  problem  of  the  world  will  first  be  fully 
solved  when  the  accomplishment  of  the  plan  of  the  world — which 
we  look  for  on  sure  grounds — is  at  length  seen. 


THE  THEODICtfE. 


347 


1.  We  found  it  was  not  possible  to  direct  our  glance  to  the  Upholding 
and  Government  of  all  things  by  the  Providence  of  God,  without  our  eyes 
becoming  dazzled  by  the  brightness  of  this  sun.     Problems  even  arose 
which  seemed  to  justify  us  in  speaking  of  spots  in  the  sun.     In  all  ages 
they  have  called  forth  more  or  less  successful  attempts  at  their  solution, 
and  we  must  not  close  our  present  argument  without  also  for  a  moment 
directing  our  attention  thereto. 

2.  The  notion  of  the  Theodicee  is  already  indicated  in  the  word,  which 
is  in  all  probability  derived  from  Leibnitz.1     We  give  this  name  to  every 
formal  attempt  to  justify  the  government  of  God  against  the  objections 
which  are  brought  against  it  from  different  standpoints.  The  Theoclicee  seeks, 
as  far  as  possible,  to  prove  that,  notwithstanding  all  the  sin  and  misery  in  the 
world,  God  may  be  regarded  as  the  highest  Wisdom  and  Goodness.     The 
legitimacy  and  appropriateness  of  such  an  attempt  cannot  be  seriously  dis- 
puted.    It  is  necessary,  not  only  on  God's  account,  but  o'ten  more  on 
account  of  ourselves  and  others ;  and  so  has  been  undertaken  from  the 
standpoint  of  every  religious  system  in  the  least  degree  developed.     As  an 
example  of  a  Theodicee  among  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  may  be 
mentioned  the  Jobeide  and  Psalms  xxxvii.,  Ixxiii.,  and  Ixxvii. ;  and  among 
those  of  the  New,  Rom.   ix. — xi.     From  the  writings  also  of  the  oldest 
Apologetes   and    Ecclesiastical    Fathers,   remarkable    instances    may   be 
adduced,  notably  from  those  of  Lactantius,  Basil  the  Great,  and  Augustine; 
while  among  the  Schoolmen,  the  names  of  Anselm  and  Thomas  Aquinas 
suggest  themselves.2   The  Reformers,  too,  have  just  as  little  left  themselves 
without  testimony  in  this  domain,  as  have  the  most  renowned  Theologians 
of  the  Romish  Church ;  and  the  footsteps  of  a  more  philosophic  mode  of 
defence  have  been  and  are  followed  even  in  our  day,  with  more  or  less  of 
success,  by  practical  thinkers  ;  although  Kant  did  not  hesitate  for  a  moment 
to  speak  of  the  attempts  of  this  kind — those  at  least  which  had  been  made 
up  to  his  time — as  entire  failures.8 

3.  The  value  of  the  Theodicee  of  course  depends  entirely  upon  the 
standpoint  from  which  it  is  attempted.     From  that  of  Reason  and  Expe- 
rience alone,  a  satisfactory  solution  cannot  possibly  be  expected ;  and  we 
cannot  be  in  the  least  surprised  that  a  Bayle,  for  instance,4  should  regard 
the  objections  which  he  adduces  against  the  doctrine  of  a  Divine  govern- 
ment as  absolutely  insuperable.     It  remains  a  difficulty  to  us,  "  until  we 
go  into  the  sanctuary  of  God."5     Without  that,  one  discovers  here  and 
there,  indeed,  light  in  the  darkness  ;  but  not  the  higher  law  in  accordance 
with  which  their  relationship  to  each  other  is  determined,  and  just  as  little 
the  pledge  that  the  light  shall  at  last  triumph  over  the  darkness.     Even 
the  Revelation  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  itself,  is  insufficient  to  raise  us 
above  the  region  of  dark  and  perturbing  clouds.     The  problem,  for  instance, 

1  Compare  his  Essais  de  Thcod.  sur  la  bont'e  de  Dieu,  la  libert'e  de  rhommc,  ft  V origin* 
du  mcil,  Amst.,  1710.  frequently  reprinted,  and  followed  by  other  similar  writings. 

2  Compare  Hagenbach,  History  of  Doctrines,  [Eng.  translation],  pp.  303  and  408  ol 
Dutch  translation. 

3  See   his  Vermischte  Schriften,  iii.,  part  7. 

4  See  his  art.  Afanif/teens, 
*  Ps.  Ixxiii.  1 6,  I/. 


348  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

of  the  prosperity  of  the  wicked,  as  contrasted  with  the  adversity  of  the 
pious,6  remained  in  part  unsolved,  so  long  as  the  eye  rested  exclusively  on 
the  world  on  this  side  the  grave.  Only  belief  in  the  revelation  of  God's 
highest  grace  in  Christ  sets  us  in  a  position  to  review  with  calmness  the 
enigmas  of  the  Divine  government 

4.  The  contents  of  a  Theodicee  which  is  thus  undertaken  are  naturally 
determined  by  the  number  and  importance  of  the  problems  necessarily 
presenting  themselves  to  the  observant  reflection.  It  is  impossible  here 
to  do  more  than  sketch  the  merest  outline  of  that  which  must  be  brought 
into  special  prominence  in  the  upholding  of  God's  glory  against  opposition 
of  such  various  kinds. 

(a.)  The  co-existence  of  God  and  of  moral  evil  remains,  after  all  that  has 
been  just  said,  assuredly  the  most  difficult  of  all  problems.  Yet  one  is 
not  on  that  account  in  any  case  justified  in  asserting  that  the  Christian 
idea  of  God  and  the  Christian  idea  of  sin  are  in  irreconcilable  conflict. 
Not  with  the  Christian  idea  of  God,  but  with  the  Monistic- deterministic 
idea,  is  the  acknowledgment  of  the  existence  of  moral  evil  absolutely 
incompatible.  This  latter  retains  the  character  of  rebellion  and  guilt 
(comp.  §  Ixxv.) ;  not  willed  by  God,  but  punished  by  Him.  But  each 
responsible  deed  is,  at  the  same  time,  a  fact  by  which  the  execution  of 
God's  counsel  is  subserved  in  a  manner  which  could  not  be  calculated 
beforehand.  Herod  and  Pontius  Pilate  do  that  which  God's  hand  and 
counsel  had  before  determined  (Trpo-Jipure) — should  be  done  (7roieto-0cu)  ? 
no,  but  should  take  place  (yei>e<r6cti.7)  That  evil  is  accomplished,  is  the  work 
of  freedom,  but  how  it  shall  be  accomplished,  and  to  what  it  shall  be 
suoservient,  is  at  the  disposal  of  God's  Providence.  "  Evil  is  a  thing 
the  course  of  which  can  be  determined" — malum  ordinabile  est — in  the 
words  of  Hugo  de  St.  Victor.  The  very  allowance  of  evil  becomes  its  own 
sentence ;  and  in  answer  to  the  question,  whether  it  would  not  have  been 
better  to  avoid  it  at  any  price,  the  word  of  the  philosopher  has  still  its 
force  :  "  Le  meilleur  parti  nest  pas  toujours  celui  qui  tend  a  eviter  le  mal, 
parce  qu'il  se pent  que  le  mal  soit  accompagne  par  un plus  grand  bien."* 

(b.}  The  Divine  government  and  natural  evil  displays  to  a  certain  extent 
something  less  incomprehensible,  because  all  natural  evil  is  at  any  rate 
a  powerful  corrective  to  absolute,  i.e.,  moral,  evil.  But  it  is  at  the  same 
time  a  fruit  of  tins  latter,  the  extirpation  of  which — so  long  as  the  root  has 
not  been  taken  away — would  without  a  miracle  be  impossible.  And  this 
miracle  could  not  be  even  regarded  as  desirable ;  because  a  sinful  world 
would,  without  pain  and  suffering,  become  assuredly  not  better,  but  rather 
worse  than  it  now  is.  Not  a  little  of  this  suffering,  moreover,  is  imagi- 
nary, relative,  and  in  such  wise  bound  up  with  the  well-being  of  life,  that 
with  the  vanishing  of  the  shadow  the  light  itself  also  would  be  extinguished. 
The  essentially  evil  is  not  only  equalled  in  measure  and  degree  by  that 
which  is  good,  but  commonly  far  surpassed  by  it.9  It  lasts  no  longer  than  is 

'  Mal.  iii.  13 — 18. 

7  Acts  iv.  28. 

8  The  better  course  is  not  always  that  which  tends  to  avoid  evil,  because  it  may  SO 
happen  that  the  evil  is  accomoanied  by  a  greater  good  (Leibnitz). 

'  Ps.  xxx.  5. 


THE  THEODICtfE.  349 

necessary,10  and  contributes  in  God's  time  to  the  realisation  of  the  noblest 
purposes.11  Bacon  well  speaks  of  prosperity  as  being  "  the  blessing  of  the 
Old  Testament,  adversity  that  of  the  New ;"  because  in  the  latter  the  light 
of  eternity  rises  upon  this  earthly  "vale  of  tears."  Such  passages  as  Rom. 
viii.  18—39;  Heb.xii.4— ii ;  James  i.  2—4;  Rev.  vilg— 17,  contain  precious 
material  for  composing  a  Theodicee  upon  this  point — a  Theodicee  which 
now  and  then  insensibly  rises  to  a  Doxology.  Even  heathen  antiquity  has 
expressed  by  the  mouth  of  one  of  its  noblest  representatives,  Seneca, 
the  dim  perception  of  many  a  consolatory  truth  in  this  domain  ;  e.g., 
"  Patrinm  habet  Dais  adversus  bonos  homines  animum,  et  illos  fortiter  fi/nat, 
et  operibus,  inquit,  dolor ib us  et  damnis  exagitenfur,  ut  rerum  colligant  rcbur  " 
— that  God  cherishes  a  fatherly  spirit  towards  good  men,  and  loves  them 
with  a  love  too  great  to  be  indulgent  towards  them,  and  tries  them  with 
labours,  with  griefs,  and  losses,  that  they  may  learn  to  draw  out  the  strength 
of  all  things  (De  Prov.  ii.  3).  Only  modern  Ethnicism  (heathenism, &•>  distin- 
guished from  heathendom)  proclaims  here,  from  its  fatalistic  standpoint,  a 
Gospel  of  despair,  which  in  the  long  run  calls  forth  the  shriek  of  a  comfort- 
less pessimism,  "  What,  this  world  the  work  of  a  God  ?  nay,  rather  of  a 
Devil,"  words  actually  uttered  by  Schopenhauer.  From  the  Christian 
standpoint,  on  the  other  hand,  we  are  equally  armed  against  Stoical 
insensibility  as  against  a  sentimental  repining  (weltschmerz),  in  the  con- 
flict of  life.  It  is,  however,  of  the  greatest  importance,  above  all,  early  to 
direct  the  youthful  mind  to  such  an  apprehension  of  this  problem  as  shall 
preserve  it  against  abandoning  belief  in  God.12 

(c.)  The  Divine  government  and  human  experience  in  regard  to  life  and 
death,  looked  at  in  a  more  general  way,  without  doubt  gives  rise  to 
extremely  painful  questions ;  but  here  also,  least  of  all,  need  there  be  want- 
ing to  thoughtful  belief  a  relatively  satisfactory  answer.  The  great  dis- 
similarity, for  example,  between  the  outward  lot  of  individuals  is  impera- 
tively necessary  for  the  continued  existence  and  well-being  of  the  great 
whole.13  It  is  moreover  only  relative,  in  many  respects  beneficial,  even  in 
the  most  unfavourable  case  only  temporary,  and  always  beyond  the  reach  of 
censure ;  since  prosperity  and  good  fortune  are  not,  indeed,  words  of  one 
meaning,  and  since,  moreover,  the  holy  God  is  under  no  obligation  to 
grant  to  a  single  sinful  man  any  particular  blessing. — As  concerns  the  time 
of  death,  for  the  ungodly  often  so  long  delayed,  while  the  pious  one  is  early 
cut  off,  even  antiquity  has  said,  not  without  reason,  that  he  whom  God 
loves  dies  young:  "  quern  Deus  diligit,  adolescens  moritur;"  and  while  in 
the  Old  Testament  a  long  life  is  regarded  as  an  especially  desirable  reward 
of  proved  fidelity  to  God,14  and  for  this  reason  the  opposite  is  an  object  of 
deprecatory  prayer,15  for  the  Christian  the  opposition  between  life  and  death 

10  i  Pet.  i.  6. 

11  Ps.  cxix.  67. 

12  The  earthquake  at  Lisbon  in   1755    called   forth  doubts  within  the  mind  of  the 
youthful  Goethe,  against  which  his  mother — a  woman  of  genius  rather  than  of  piety — had 
not  a  single  antidote. 

13  I  Cor.  xii.  12 — 26. 

14  Gen.  xv.  15;  Prov.  x.  27. 
ls  Ps.  cii.  24. 


350  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

is  solved  in  a  higher  harmony.16 — The  question  which  here  naturally  presents 
itself,  to  what  extent  the  shortening  or  prolonging  of  life  lies  within  the 
power  of  man,  is,  in  other  words,  simply  a  special  form  of  the  general 
question  as  to  the  connection  between  the  Divine  government  and  human 
freedom  of  action,  and  is  on  that  account  an  unprofitable  one.17  No  one 
dies  before  his  time,  i.e.,  the  time  assigned  to  him  by  God  ;18  but  one  may 
die  before  the  (ordinary)  time,  in  consequence  of  his  own  misconduct  or 
that  of  others,  and  in  such  case  we  must  say  that  such  dying  is  not  willed 
but  permitted  of  God.  The  prolonging  of  life  in  answer  to  prayer19  is  no 
modification,  but  rather  a  manifestation  and  carrying  into  execution,  of 
God's  counsel ;  the  shortening  of  life,  on  the  other  hand,  by  manslaughter 
or  suicide  for  instance,  takes  place  not  according  to  the  will  of  God,  but 
according  to  His  foreknowledge,  and  under  the  universal  rule  of  God's 
providence. 

(//.)  The  government  of  God  and  man's  own  obligation  to  activity  are  so 
little  opposed  to  each  other,  that,  on  the  other  hand,  in  the  government  of 
the  former  the  subordinate  activity  of  the  latter  has  been  taken  into  account. 
We  know  not  what  God  has  determined  with  regard  to  us,  but  we  may  assume 
on  good  grounds  that  sluggish  inactivity  on  our  part  must  run  counter  to 
God's  ordination  for  our  true  well-being.  The  narrative  of  the  twenty- 
seventh  chapter  of  Acts  is  at  once  a  proof  and  illustration  of  the  co-opera- 
tion of  the  two  factors  in  the  bringing  about  of  an  assured  result.  As 
concerns  intercessory  prayer,  more  particularly,  regarded  as  the  free  act 
of  man  (comp.  §  Ixi.  7,  8),  it  is  only  from  the  standpoint  of  Determinism 
and  Naturalism,  but  never  from  that  of  Christian  Theism,  that  its  actual 
hearing  can  be  regarded  as  inconceivable.  If  the  connection  between 
asking  and  receiving  ever  remains,  from  the  nature  of-  the  case,  mysterious, 
nothing  prevents  our  supposing  that  the  foreknown  act  of  prayer  also,  as  a 
consequence  of  a  certain  pre-established  harmony,  "  harmonia  pt'&stabilita" 
is  included  by  God  in  His  eternal  counsel  as  a  means  to,  and  condition  of, 
the  attainment  of  His  purpose.  "  We  must  add  to  this  that  true  prayer  is 
not  merely  human,  but  sustained  and  carried  on  by  the  Divine  Spirit  as 
the  Spirit  of  prayer,  and  that  it  has  to  such  an  extent  a  prophetic  character, 
in  which  the  Providence  of  God  is  one  with  the  presentiment  of  man. 

Hence  the  sealing  of  prayer  by  the  Amen Prayer  comes  forth  from 

the  eternal  freedom  of  the  child,  and  goes  back  to  the  eternal  freedom 
of  the  Father"  (Lange).  To  the  living  freely  acting  God  there  must  at 
least  be  allowed  the  liberty  which  one  man  has  in  regard  to  the  supplication 
of  another,  the  liberty  to  hear  and  help.  All  independent  activity  may  be 
equally  well  combated  with  the  same  objections  which  are  brought  against 
the  effectiveness  of  prayer,  as  powerless  in  presence  of  the  eternal  order  of 
the  world,  since  against  the  former  also  precisely  the  same  objections  lie. 

(e.)  The  Divine  government  and  the  moral  perfection  of  humanity  offers 
to  many  an  occasion  of  complaint  and  doubt.  If  humanity  is  really  on  the 
advance,  and  if  God  actually  rules,  must  not  this  progress  be  more  rapid 
and  manifest?  Sometimes  periods  arrive  when  this  question  is  renewed 

18  Rom.  xiv.  8.  "  Acts  xiii.  36. 

17  Compare  Beverovicius,  Quastt.  Epistt.  determinovittzfatali,  1634.         w  Isa.  xxxviii.  5. 


THE  THEODICtfE.  351 

with  increased  emphasis,  and  faith  has  to  sustain  a  severe  conflict  because 
human  folly  and  wickedness,  in  unbridled  rage,  hurl  back  the  world,  as  it 
were,  from  the  comparative  height  attained  to  with  the  utmost  effort 
Luther,  Melancthon,  Arndt,  and  many  others,  for  this  reason  asserted  that 
humanity  became  ever  worse ;  while  not  a  few  even  in  the  present  day 
believe  only  in  material  and  intellectual  progress,  but  not  in  that  of  a  moral 
and  spiritual  kind.  In  opposition  to  these  we  cannot,  however  hopeless 
things  may  sometimes  look,  abandon  belief  in  this  last  also,  as  being  based 
upon  the  nature  of  God  and  of  man,  and  confirmed  by  history  and  expe- 
rience in  a  number  of  instances.  Only  we  must  seek  to  extend  our  vision  • 
beyond  the  immediate  future  and  our  nearest  surroundings  ;  and  must  never 
forget  that  the  evil  makes  far  more  noise  than  the  good,  which  usually 
operates  but  slowly  and  unseen.  "  Patiens  quia  ceternus"  God's  way  with 
our  race  is  not  the  shortest,  but  the  best ;  the  safe  but  frequently  wearisome 
circuit  by  which  Israel  was  led  forward.20 

(/. )  Finally,  as  concerns  the  Divine  government  and  the  mysteries  of 
Providence  in  general,  the  demand  that  the  latter  should  not  exist  at  all,  so 
that  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God  should  be  at  once  evident  to  abso- 
lutely every  one,  merits  the  name  of  arbitrariness  itself.  For  the  question 
is  not  whether  a  thing  is  doubted,  but  whether  it  is  with  reason  doubted ; 
not  whether  mysteries  present  themselves,  but  whether  they  are  of  such  a 
nature  as  to  compel  us  to  abandon  belief  in  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of 
God.  A  government  of  Providence  without  a  single  cloud  would  assuredly 
not  be  Divine ; 21  and  upon  the  darkest  ways  we  see  at  every  turn  such 
bright  footsteps  that  we  very  soon  no  longer  need  to  ask  whether  the 
heavenly  Traveller  has  passed  here  too. 

5.  After  what  has  been  said  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  point  out  that 
even  the  best  Theodice'e  here  upon  earth  sees  a  limit  imposed  to  it,  which 
it  is  neither  possible  nor  desirable  to  pass  beyond.  What  has  already 
been  said  earlier,  in  general,  concerning  the  incomprehensibleness  of  God 
(J  xlii.  3),  finds  also  its  application  in  this  particular  domain.  A  com- 
plete Theodice'e  is  not  possible  on  account  of  the  wide  distance  between 
God's  exaltedness  and  our  insignificance,  God's  wisdom  and  our  short- 
sightedness, God's  infiniteness  and  our  transitoriness.  At  best  we  can 
observe  something  of  the  quid  (the  U'haf),  much  less  of  the  quomodo  (the 
how\  and  least  of  all  of  the  quare  (the  wherefore)  of  the  Divine  activity. 
Nor  is  this  necessary,  either  for  the  honour  of  God  or  for  the  edification  of 
our  neighbour,  or  for  our  own  essential  well-being.  The  mysterious  element 
in  the  Divine  government  on  its  part  curbs  the  pride  of  man,  calls  forth  faith 
with  its  precious  fruits,  and  justifies  the  hope  which  it  awakens  in  the  pro- 
mised revelation  of  the  future.22  If  we  cannot  here  below  either  supply 
or  expect  a  complete  Theodice'e,  based  upon  solid  grounds,  we  may, 
nevertheless,  form  a  tolerably  accurate  and  satisfactory  one.  |'  The  true 
Theodice'e  must  be  undertaken  from  the  standpoint  of  Christianity,  but  the 
complete  Theodice'e  can  only  be  given  with  the  completed  history  of  the 
world  "  (Martensen).  This  is  to  be  looked  for  from  no  single  man,  nor 
from  all  men  together,  but  only  from  God  Himself. 

20  Exod.  xiii.  17.  2l  Isa.  xlv. ;  Ps.  xcviL  K  John  xiii.  7. 


352  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

6.  The  accomplishment  of  the  Divine  world-plan,  which  will  be  at  the 
same  time  its  glorious  vindication,  notwithstanding  all  conflict  and  oppo- 
sition, may  be  predicted  upon  the  most  solid  grounds.  This  belief  is  the 
natural  fruit  of  the  Christian  idea  of  God  itself.  From  the  Naturalistic 
standpoint  one  can  at  best  but  hope  that  order,  so  far  as  it  may  now  be 
said  to  exist,  will  continue  to  exist  ;  but  one  has  no  ground  for  supposing 
that  .eventually  it  will,  in  the  moral  domain,  completely  triumph  over  all 
opposition.  Then  all  must  ever  remain  as  it  was,  since  God,  according  to 
this  doctrine,  has  no  power  to  produce  anything  that  is  new  by  His  own 
Supranatural  means.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  firmly  hold  to  faith  in  a 
God  who  is  not  simply  the  absolute  causality,  but  also  the  highest  moral 
power,  the  Father  of  spirits,  which  He  has  created  unto  life  and  freedom, 
but  without  the  possibility  of  their  withdrawing  themselves  for  a  moment 
from  His  hand,  the  satisfactory  catastrophe  of  the  world-drama  is  raised 
above  all  question.  "  Providence  is  in  no  respect  abstract  Power;  but  in 
all,  the  most  living,  tender,  immediate  sway  and  government"  (Lange). — 
In  addition  to  this,  the  most  positive  promises  of  God  in  His  word  give  us 
to  look  forward  with  confidence  to  this  issue.28 — Finally,  the  history  of  the 
world  and  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  gives  us  to  see  an  approximation,  slow 
indeed,  and  frequently  interrupted,  but  yet  constant,  towards  this  glorious 
end.  The  world's  history  is  the  world's  judgment,  but  that  judgment  at  the 
same  time  a  continual  world-restoration,  which  ceases  not  until  the  closing 
word  of  Creation's  history  (Gen.  i.  31)  shall  have  become  also  that  of  the 
annals  of  the  Divine  government.  Nothing  is  more  hopeless  than  to  oppose 
this  work  of  God,  nothing  more  blessed  than  willingly  to  advance  it.24  When 
finally  it  shall  be  manifestly  completed — and  in  principle  it  is  so  already  for 
the  eye  of  faith — the  "  nil  mirari"  (to  wonder  at  nothing)  will  be  no  longer 
possible,  and  wonder  (rb  6av/j.dfru>)  more  than  ever  be  recognised  not  simply 
as  rfft  0i\o(To</»tos,  but  also  as  TTJS  Tr/xw/cwTjo-ffws  dpxri — the  beginning  not  only  of 
philosophy,  but  also  of  adoration.  In  the  words  of  the  great  Dutch  poet, 
Da  Costa : — 

At  the  confines  of  the  ages,  sees  my  eye  the  spirit  of  evil 
Vanquished  and  disarmed,  for  rebellion  no  more  able. 
When  the  Lord  God  in  all  things  and  in  all  is  all, 
Will  it  light  be,  ever  light  be,  light  of  light  and  darkness  bom. 

Compare  ULRICI'S  article,  Theodicee,  in  Herzog's  R.  E.,  xv.,  pp.  707 — 713,  and  the 
literature  there  adduced  ;  to  which  may  be  added  Theodicee,  Etudes  sur  Dieu,  la  Creation, 
ct  la  Prtnridence,  par  AM.  DE  MARGERIE,  Prof,  a  Nancy  (1865),  a  spiritualistic  Theistic 

rlemic  against  Naturalism  ;  E.  DE  PRESSENSE,  The  Mystery  of  Suffering  [Eng.  trans.] ; 
H.  GUNNING,  Junr.,  Blikkenin  de  Offenb.,  ii.  (1868),  p.  265,  sqq. ;  CREMER,  Beitrage 
zu  ewer  Christl.  Weltanschauung,  in  the  JBeweis  des  Glaubens  (1869),  p.  40,  sqq. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

What  demands  may  legitimately  be  made  upon  a  satisfactory  Theodicee  ? — Whence  is 
it  that  so  many  a  Theodicee  has  partially  or  wholly  failed  ? — Discussion  and  elucidation  of 
the  most  essential  points  in  a  Theodicee. — The  history  of  the  kingdom  of  God  a  Theodicee 
ever  receiving  fresh  contributions. 

21  See,  for  example,  Isa.  xlvi.  IO ;  Matt.  xvi.  1 8 ;  xxviii.  20 ;  I  Cor.  xv.  24 — 28,  and 
many  other  places. 
84  I  Cor.  iii.  g. 


HARMONY  BETWEEN   GOD'S   NATURE  AND   WORKS.         353 


SECTION    LXIV.— CONCLUSION. — HARMONY    BETWEEN    GOD'S 
NATURE    AND    WORKS. 

The  harmony  between  God's  nature  and  works  is  so  manifest, 
that,  though  for  belief  in  God  the  answer  to  many  a  question  must 
still  remain  wanting,  unbelief  in  regard  to  His  existence  and  go- 
vernment of  the  world,  undeniably  condemns  itself.  The  constantly 
repeated  observation  of  this  harmony  is  for  the  science  of  faith 
an  urgent  duty,  and  for  the  life  of  faith  an  inestimable  blessing. 

1.  At  the  end  of  this  examination  we  look  back  yet  once  more.    Starting 
from  the  well-founded  belief  in  God,  we  have  sought  to  formulate  the 
Christian  conception  of  God,  and  to  consider  the  majesty  of  the  Infinite  as 
this  is  revealed  in  His  various  Attributes.     As  the  central  point  of  all,  we 
learnt  to  recognise  Love,  which  at  once  afforded  us  a  starting-point  for  the 
discussion  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost.    As 
proceeding  from  the  Divine  Being,  the  plan  of  the  world  unfolded  itself 
before  our  eyes,  as  it  is  realised,  partly  in  the  creation  ot  the  universe, 
of  the  world  of  spirits,  of  this  earth  especially  ;  partly  in  the  sustaining 
and  governing  of  all  things,  especially  of  man  and  humanity.     (Comp. 
§§  xlii. — Ixiii.)     Without  any  blank,  or  abrupt  transition,  we  continued  our 
research,  and  find  that,  whatever  questions  have  remained  unsolved,  that 
which  has  been  said  concerning  God's  nature  has  been  confirmed  by  the 
contemplation  of  His  works,  and,  conversely,  that  which  has  been  said 
concerning  God's  works,   by  the  contemplation  of  His  nature.     As  two 
beams,  fitting  into  each  other,  uphold  the  same  arched  roof,  so  we  see  the 
two  parts  of  the  Christian  doctrine  concerning  God  mutually  support  and 
cover  each  other. 

2.  Notwithstanding  all  the  imperfection  which,  from  tfye  nature  of  the 
case,  inseparably  attaches  to  such  demonstration,  the  absurdity  of  its  non- 
acknowledgment  now  stands  in  a  clearer  light  before  our  eye.     Without 
belief  in  God,   as  the   Creator  and  Governor  of  the  world,  that  which  is 
most  certain  becomes   at  once  uncertain   and   incomprehensible.      This 
belief  has  been  termed  an  "  hypothesis  :"  be  it  so,  provided  only  it  be 
added  that  this  alone  explains — at  least  to  a  certain  extent — the  mystery  of 
the  world,  and  even  thereby  is  manifested  to  be  something  infinitely  more 
than  mere  hypothesis.     For  the  theologian,  as  for  the  simplest  child,  the 
great  question  of  conscience  and  of  life  ultimately  becomes  :  "  Believest 
thou  truly  in  a  living  God  ?  "  and  he  who  can  answer  it  only  in  the  nega- 
tive, and  can  speak  only  of  an  eternal  "  order  of  the  world  "  in  the  Natural- 
istic sense,  should  at  least — with  his  so-called  science — possess  sufficient 
conscience   to  prevent  his  forcing  himself  into  the  sacred  service  of  a 
Church,  which  is  built  up  exclusively  upon  the  foundation  of  faith  in  the 

A  A 


354  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

God  of  Revelation.  Only  he  who  can  call  this  belief  his  own,  is  in  his 
place  and  at  home  in  the  theological  and  ecclesiastical  world ;  but  then 
also  on  this  account  the  more  called  upon  to  watch  over  this  treasure,  to 
increase  it,  and  to  defend  it  against  every  hostile  attack.  Nevertheless 
here  also  life  in  God  remains  the  best  way  to  a  knowledge  which — 
nourished  by  experience  and  adoration — disposes  the  mind  to  an  ever 
higher  glorifying  of  God.1 

1  Rom.  xi.  33 — 36 ;  I  Tim.  i.  17. 


CHAPTER  II. 

ON  MAN;  OR,  THE  SUBJECT  OF  THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD. 
(ANTHROPOLOGY.) 


SECTION   LXV.— TRANSITION  AND  GENERAL  SURVEY. 

WITH  the  doctrine  concerning  God  (Theology),  that  concerning 
man  (Anthropology)  is  most  closely  connected,  and,  from  the  nature 
of  the  ca'se,  of  no  less  preponderating  importance  for  Christian  Dog- 
matics. Equally  with  the  knowledge  of  Theology  is  that  of  An- 
thropology— better  than  from  any  other  source — drawn  from  the 
sacred  documents.  In  the  treatment  of  this  subject,  the  considera- 
tion of  man's  original  nature  and  constitution  must  precede  that  of 
his  present  moral  condition. 

1.  The  high  importance  of  the  study  of  Christian  Anthropology  needs  no 
formal  demonstration.     In  itself  it  is  of  the  highest  significance  for  the 
man,  the  Christian,  the  Theologian.     "  The  proper  study  of  mankind  is 
man."      If  to  the  question,   "What  is   man?"  the  number  of  wise  and 
foolish  answers  has  been  legion,  this  very  number  shows  that  no  thoughtful 
mind  can  be  indifferent  to  this  inquiry.     No  wonder :   "  1'homme  n'est 
qu'un  roseau,  le  plus  faible  de  la  nature,  mais  c'est  un  roseau  pensant."1 
Notably  for  Christian  Dogmatics  a  profound  contemplation  of  man,  his 
aspirations,   wants,   condition,  destination,  etc.,  is  not  only  desirable,  but 
indispensable.     The  more  thorough  the  Anthropology,  the  more  solid  the 
Soteriology.      Especially  in  our  days  is  a  continued  study  of  this  topic 
required  •  because,  as  Theology  is  more  than  ever  threatened  by  Scepticism, 
so  is  Anthropology  by  Materialism.     So  much  hostility,  indifference,  and 
misunderstanding  in  regard  to  the  truth  proceeds  simply  from  the  fact  that 
men  know  not  man,  i.e.,  themselves. 

2.  The  connection  between  Anthropology  and  Theology  in  the  narrower 

1  "  Man  is  but  a  reed,  the  feeblest  thing  in  nature ;  but  he  is  one  endowed  with  thought. " 
— PASCAL. 

A  A  a 


356  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

sense  of  the  term  is  close,  and  obviously  reciprocal  too.  On  the  one 
hand  God  is  known  through  man,  the  most  excellent  of  all  those  creatures 
in  which  is  made  manifest  His  eternal  power  and  Godhead;2  but  on  the 
other  hand  it  may  be  said  that  the  pure  knowledge  of  man  is  derived  from 
that  of  God.  Here  also  the  words,  "  In  Thy 'light  shall  we  see  light" have 
their  application.  How  would  it  be  possible  to  solve  the  enigma  of 
humanity,  if  we  did  not  find  the  key  thereto  in  Him  who  is  the  first  and 
the  last  word,  the  Alpha  and  the  Omega  of  all  things  ?  The  stream  is  best 
explained  by  the  fountain,  the  tree  by  the  soil  from  which  it  has  sprung. 
As  has  been  already  well  remarked  by  Calvin,  "  Each  one  by  a  knowledge 
of  himself  is  not  only  urged  to  seek  God,  but  also  as  it  were  guided  by  the 
hand  to  find  Him."3 

3.  The  source  from  which  this  knowledge  of  man  is  derived  has  been 
already  indicated.  It  is  true  we  possess  numerous  aids  to  assist  us  in 
arriving  at  a  deeper  knowledge  of  man  and  of  humanity,  even  without  Holy 
Scripture.  The  observations  of  others  may  shed  for  us  not  a  little  light 
upon  this  mysterious  domain,  reflection  thereon  yet  more,  and  careful  self- 
examination  and  long-continued  experience  may  throw  even  very  much  light 
thereupon.  Yet  the  final  answer  to  the  important  questions  which  here  arise, 
lies  beyond  the  speculative  as  well  as  beyond  the  merely  empirical  sphere. 
Physiology  and  Psychology  may  dissect  the  man,  but  cannot  fully  explain 
him  ;  and  precisely  the  most  distinguished  students  of  these  sciences  will 
be  the  first  to  join  in  the  confession  :  "  Into  the  heart  of  nature  penetrates 
no  created  spirit."  These  depths  also  are  disclosed  only  when  not  merely 
the  eye  of  the  spirit  is  opened,  but  light  is  shed  from  above.  We 
therefore  speak  of  Holy  Scripture,  which  is  the  original  documentary 
evidence  of  the  Saving  Revelation,  as  at  the  same  time  the  best  source 
whence  we  may  also  become  acquainted  with  man.  It  is  true,  not  all 
questions  which  awaken  our  interest  are  here  decided  or  receive  a  com- 
plete answer.  Holy  Scripture  is  no  textbook  of  Anthropology,  any  more 
than  of  Astronomy  or  Geology.  More  than  this,  the  light  which  is  here 
shed  upon  man  is  by  no  means  equal  to  that  which  arises  for  us  in  relation 
'to  God.  God  reveals  Himself  to  us :  man  is  made  manifest  to  us  and 
to  himself  by  the  torch  of  Holy  Scripture.  Scripture  itself  awakens  a 
sense  of  the  incomprehensible  nature  of  man,  even  for  his  fellow- 
men.4  Hence  the  demand  for  self-examination,5  in  place  of  the  higher 
demand  of  self-knowledge — a  qualification  not  easily  attainable  upon  earth. 
Here  also  the  distinction  between  a  pure  and  a  complete  knowledge 
must  for  this  reason  be  observed  from  the  first.  But,  with  this  limitation, 
we  do  not  hesitate  a  single  moment  to  speak  of  Holy  Scripture  as  the  best 
guide  upon  the  path  of  a  true  knowledge  of  man  and  of  ourselves.  To  the 
twofold  question  continually  suggested  to  humanity  in  its  wanderings, 
"  Whence  comest  thou,  and  whither  goest  thou  ?"G  Scripture  alone  returns 

*  Rom.  i.  19,  20. 

1  "  Unusquisque  non  tantum  agnitione  sui  instigatur  ad  quaerendum  Deum,  sed  etiam 
reperiendum  quasi  manu  ducitur"  (Calv.  /nst.,  i.  i). 
4  Jer.  xvii.  9 ;  I  Cor.  ii.  u. 

*  2  Cor.  xiii.  5. 

*  Gen.  xvi.  8. 


TRANSITION   AND  GENERAL  SURVEY.  357 

an  answer  at  all  satisfactory.  In  the  first  place,  because  it  gives  us 
to  contemplate  God  in  the  clearest  light,  does  it  dispel  many  a  cloud 
which  had  concealed  from  our  eye  the  image  of  humanity.  Moreover,  it 
affords  us  trustworthy  information  as  to  the  origin  and  nature  of  sin,  and 
without  a  thorough  Hamartology  there  is  no  satisfactory  Anthropology. 
Above  all,  Holy  Scripture  displays  to  us  the  image  of  Him  in  whom,  as 
even  unbelief  admits,  the  ideal  of  humanity  was  most  fully  realised,  and  from 
whom  consequently  we  can  best  learn  "  what  is  implied  in  being  man." 
In  Him  we  behold  at  the  same  time  what  we  must  be,  and  what  we  are 
not.  From  Him  we  constantly  hear  words  which  testify  to  the  deepest 
acquaintance  with  mankind,  and  which  are  equivalent  to  so  many  revela- 
tions in  this  domain.  Thqs  light  falls  from  this  centre  of  Saving  Revelation 
upon  the  whole  circumference  of  human  living  and  dying.  Holy  Scripture 
does  not  merely  tell  us  who  man  is,  but  presents  him  in  his  light  and 
shadowy  side ;  and  merits  as  no  other  source  of  knowledge  does — on  this 
account  also — the  name  not  only  of  a  truly  Divine,  but  also  of  a  truly 
human  book.  Such  as  we  are  here  depicted,  are  we  in  reality ;  the  highest 
revelation  of  the  Godhead  is  at  the  same  time  the  clearest  mirror  of  humanity. 
From  its  sanctuary  sounds  forth  in  manifold  tones,  not  only  the  "  Introite, 
ethic  Dei  sunt"  [Enter,  for  here  also  God  is  present],  but  also  the  "  Ecce 
homo  !  " 

4.  The  value  of  the  Biblical  Christian  Anthropology  becomes  apparent, 
above  all,  when  it  is  observed  how,  in  placing  ourselves  at  this  standpoint, 
we  are  ever  most  preserved  from  the  two  opposite  rocks,  each  of  which  is 
to  be  shunned  with  equal  solicitude — that  of  a  foolish  worship  of  humanity  on 
the  one  hand,  and  of  a  profound  contempt  for  humanity  on  the  other.     All 
the  history  of  philosophy,  as  well  as  all  experience,  goes  to  show  how  man 
left  to  himself  has  ever  oscillated  between  these  extremes.     Holy  Scripture 
alone  preserves,  in  this  respect,  the  just  mean  ;  or  rather,  it  raises  us  above 
either  onesidedness,  by  proclaiming  to  him  who  deifies  humanity,  not  only 
the  insignificance,  but  also  the  unworthiness  and  deep  misery  of  the  race ; 
and  conversely,  by  reminding  him  who  extravagantly  degrades  humanity, 
that  we  are  God's  offspring,  and  were  created  after  His  image.     Nowhere 
is  man  more  degraded  than  from  the  standpoint  of  unbelief;  nowhere,  on 
the  other  hand,  is  pride  so  deeply  humbled,  but  at  the  same  time  the 
humbled  one  so  highly  exalted,  as  from  the  standpoint  of  Holy  Scripture. 
In  proof  we  take  only  the  seventh  chapter  of  Romans,  the  Confessions  of 
Augustine,  and  the  glorious  Pensees  of  Pascal.     While  the  questions  arise 
in  every  thoughtful  mind,  "  If  man's  nature  is  so  excellent,  whence  his 
deeply  wretched  condition  ?  "  and  again,  "  If  man  is  so  mean  and  worth- 
less a  being,  whence  is  it  that  he  is  never  reconciled  to  this  condition  ?  " 
Holy  Scripture  alone  explains  to  us  the  enigma,  by  teaching  us  sharply  to 
distinguish  between  the  original  nature  and  the  present  condition  of  man, 
and  thus  to  come  to  the  conclusion  that  he  is  helplessly  and  yet  not  hope- 
lessly lost. 

5.  The  division  of  this  chapter,  in  the  manner  above  indicated,  has  its 
reason  in  the  nature  of  the  subject,  and  is  justified  by  what  we  have  just 
said.     At  the  very  outset  it  at  the  same   time  bears  witness  against  the 
opinion  of  those  who  regard  sin  not  as  a  degeneration,  but  rather  as  a 


358  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

development.  The  second  half  of  our  examination  must,  from  the  stand- 
point we  have  here  taken,  occupy  us  not  merely  as  a  separate  subject,  but 
also  even  more  in  detail  than  the  first,  and  above  all  must  serve  as  a  basis 
for  that  opposition  between  Sin  and  Grace  which  dominates  all  dogmatic 
thinking  which  is  in  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel  and  of  the  Reformation.  On 
the  threshold  of  neither  of  these  can  the  ancient  prayer  of  the  Psalmist  be 
dispensed  with :  "  Send  out  Thy  light  and  Thy  truth  :  let  them  lead  me  ! " 

Compare  for  the  whole  of  this  chapter,  and  especially  for  the  first  division,  G.  H.  VON 
SCHUBERT,  Geschichte  dtr  Seele,  3rd  edn.  (1839) ;  I.  H.  FICHTE,  Anthropologie  (1856)  ; 
and  the  principal  handbooks  of  Psychology  of  the  present  day  ;  notably  H.  ULRICI,  Lab 
und  Seele  ;  compare  also  the  art.  Mensch,  in  Herzog's  R.  £.;  C.  RUDLOFF,  Die  Lehre 
vom  Menschen,  begriindet  aus  der  gb'ttl.  Offenb.  (1858) ;  LUT*HARDT,  Apologetical  Lectures 
on  the  Saving  Truths  of  Christianity  (Eng.  trans.) ;  and  a  paper  by  STEMLER,  Het  Chr. 
leerbegrip  over  den  Mensch,  in  the  Godg.  Bijdr.  (1869),  i. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Reason  why  man  is  so  differently  viewed  from  the  standpoint  of  Heathenism,  Judaism, 
and  Christianity  respectively. — Can  Holy  Scripture  be  regarded  as  the  fons  primarius  in 
the  domain  of  Anthropology,  in  the  same  sense  in  which  it  is,  e.g.,  in  the  domain  of 
Theology  or  Christology  ? — Has  philosophy  without  the  Bible  really  unceasingly  been 
guilty  of  the  worship  of  humanity  or  contempt  for  humanity,  and  whence  this  common 
phenomenon? — What  is  the  best  method  oi  studying  Christian  Anthropology,  so  as  to 
gain  the  desired  result  ? 


HIS  ORIGIN.  3  55 


FIRST  DIVISION. 

MAN'S    ORIGINAL    NATURE. 
SECTION   LXVI. — HIS  ORIGIN. 

MAN,  the  most  excellent  being  upon  earth,  owes  his  origin  to  a 
definite  creative  act  of  God,  in  consequence  of  which  he  may  in  no 
sense  be  called  the  merely  natural  product  of  a  lower  order  of 
creatures,  but  rather  a  separate  link  in  the  chain  of  animated  beings. 
The  doctrine  of  the  original  unity  of  the  human  race,  announced  in 
the  Bible,  and  maintained  by  later  science  against  continual  con- 
tradiction, has  not  only  a  moral,  but  a  definitively  religious  impor- 
tance, and  ought  on  this  account,  also  in  Christian  Dogmatics,  to 
receive  due  recognition. 

i.  We  place  our  assertion  that  "man  is  the  most  excellent  being 
on  earth,"  at  once  in  the  forefront,  not  only  because  nothing  meets  us 
earlier  than  this,  but  also  because  Materialism  most  sadly  disavows  this 
truth,  by  forgetting  the  real  distinction  between  man  and  beast.  And  yet 
this  distinction  appears  again  and  again,  whether  we  cast  our  eyes 
on  the  corporeal  or  on  the  spiritual  side  of  our  nature.  Though  man  is 
surpassed  in  length  of  life,  in  strength  of  body,  in  rapidity  of  movement,  or 
in  other  qualities,  by  many  a  beast ;  yet  is  his  superiority  seen  from  his 
upright  form,  from  the  finer  mechanism  of  some  of  his  limbs,  e.g.,  the  hand 
or  the  eye  ;  from  the  beauteous  harmony  of  the  normally  developed  human 
body  (as  is  shown  in  the  Apollo  Belvedere) ;  from  his  adaptability  to  live 
in  all  kinds  of  climates  ;  from  his  power  of  disarming,  dominating,  or 
domesticating  the  animal  world  ;  specially,  however,  from  his  power  of 
speech,  so  infinitely  raised  above  the  uttering  or  the  imitation  of  sounds 
of  beasts ;  and,  finally,  only  explicable  as  the  fruit  of  a  Divine  operation. 

It  is,  however,  the  psychical  and  spiritual  side  of  our  being  which  still 
more  confirms  the  truth  of  the  words  of  the  poet  in  Ps.  viii.  4 — 6,  compared 
with  Ps.  cxxxix.  14.  Man  alone  upon  earth  deserves  the  name  of  a  rational, 
moral,  religious  being.  Though  the  lower  powers  of  the  soul  are  operative 
in  the  beasts,  the  highest  power,  that  of  ideas,  by  which  the  sense  is 
directed  to  the  ideal,  is  sought  even  in  the  most  developed  beast  in  vain. 
The  very  remarkable  imitative  faculty  of  some  beasts  is  nothing  more  than 
an  admirable  instinct ;  but  the  element  of  constant  progress,  by  which  human 


360  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

endeavour  is  marked,  is  missed  in  that  of  the  animal  world.  There  is  a 
propensity  by  which  the  creature  is  led,  here  only  a  working  of  the  free  and 
active  will,  which  leads  even  to  the  most  unfortunate  abuse  of  freedom  of 
choice.  The  animal  is  a  type  of  his  class ;  man  an  individuality  in  a  highly 
privileged  race.  In  an  animal,  therefore,  it  is  absurd  to  speak  of  moral 
good  and  evil,  or  of  a  responsibility,  which  attaches  to  it ;  prosecutions  of 
witches  were  cruel,  but  prosecutions  of  animals  merely  ridiculous.  Above 
all,  man  alone  is  fitted  for  personal  communion  with  God.  The  animal 
cannot  pray,  even  when  it  is  taught  to  assume  the  attitude  of  prayer. 
Here,  if  anywhere,  the  saying  is  true,  "  1st  alles  nur  Dressur,  und  von  ein' 
Geist  vernehm  ich  keine  Spur"  (Gotthe).  The  Psalm  of  the  Panting 
Hart  and  that  of  the  Good  Shepherd  could  only  spring  from  the  heart  ol 
man. 

2.  Whence  then  this  man  ?     It  is  not  enough  to  say  that  he,  as  every- 
thing else,  has  his  origin  from  God  ;  the  question  is  whether  any  more 
accurate  definition  concerning  the  proper  origin  of  the  human  race  can 
be  attained.      Without  reason  this  question  is  put  on  one  side,  as  not 
belonging  to  the  domain  of  Theology,  but  to  that  of  physical  science. 
"  There  are  fundamental  principles  in  our  contemplation  of  nature  which 
have  an  immediate  religious  import"  (Kurtz).     So  he  who  wishes  to  see 
the  question  as  to  the  origin  of  mankind  relegated  from  the  Theological 
to  the  zoological  sphere,  expresses  thereby,  though  silently,  a  proposition 
and  at  the  same  time  a  denial,  of  which  the  rights  at  any  rate  must  be  first 
proved.  If  natural  philosophy  after  so  many  centuries  has  not  yet  been  able 
to  uplift  the  last  veil,  we  may  not  refuse  to  the  science  of  faith  the  modest 
attempts  which  it  on  its  part  ventures  to  essay.      And  yet  she  may  by  no 
means  call  this  investigation  a  matter  of  indifference,  as  far  as  concerns  the 
interests  which  affect  her  most  supremely.      Supposing  it  were  made  really 
evident  that  man  is  nothing  more  than  the  Naturalism  of  these  days  asserts, 
then  would  everything,  which  according  to  the  Gospel  has  been  done  by 
God  for  the  salvation  of  this  man,  become,  if  not  absolutely  absurd,  at  least 
most  improbable.     The  more  reason  that  Dogmatics  should  not  exclude 
this  question  from  the  sphere  of  its  investigations,  even  when  continuing 
to  observe  those  of  natural  philosophy  with  undiminished  interest.      Or 
would  it  be  absolutely  impossible  for  her  to  throw  any  light  upon  this 
darkness?      Undoubtedly,  if  it  were  at  the  outset   evident  that  nothing 
which  Holy  Scripture  teaches  on  this  point  deserves  the  slightest  confi- 
dence.   But,  when  once  we  stand  at  the  Christian  Theistic  standpoint,  we 
find  no  sufficient  reasons  for  such  a  decision,  and  the  question  must  be 
seriously  discussed,  whether  or  not  a  light  has  been  kindled  for  Belief, 
which  we  in  this  domain  look  for  in  vain  from  the  side  of  Experience  or 
Speculation. 

3.  If  we  consult  the  Bible,  we  learn  from  the  Lord  Jesus  that  it  is  God 
who  has  "made  them  male  and  female"  (Matt.  xix.  4).    St.  Paul  speaks  in 
a  like  sense  in  i  Cor.  xi.  8 — 12;  i  Tim.  ii.  13;  and  his  words  are  only  the 
echo   of  the  testimony  of  the  Old  Testament.1     All  these  voices  refer 
us   to   the   record  of  Moses,  which  in  Gen.  i.  26,  compared  with  Gen. 


1  See  Exod.  iv.  II  ;  Job  xxxv.  10;  Ps.  xciv.  9  ;  Mai.  ii.  10  ;  and  many  more  passages. 


HIS  ORIGIN.  3<5r 

ii.  7,  relates  the  creation  of  man,  in  a  manner  completely  different  from 
that  of  any  other  of  the  kinds  of  creatures,  and  in  that  respect  indubitably 
deserves  complete  confidence.  Moreover,  that  which  has  before  been 
observed  in  §  Iviii.,  respecting  this  record  as  a  whole,  is  applicable  to  this 
particular  section.  The  words  of  Jesus  and  the  Apostles  have  stamped 
upon  its  utterance  a  seal  of  high  import  for  every  Christian.  A  comparison 
with  other  Ea~tern  Anthropogonies  gives  a  result  most  favourable  to 
the  Mosaic,  and  the  discrepancy  which  is  seen  between  the  two  narratives 
of  Genesis  is  by  no  means  insuperable.  Even  if  it  were  thought  that  some 
particulars  of  the  hoary  narrative,  e.g.,  that  relating  to  the  formation  of 
woman,  must  be  regarded  as  a  dream  or  a  vision,  there  is  still  no  doubt 
that  here,  too,  the  chief  idea  predominates ;  viz.,  man  by  no  means  a 
mere  product  of  nature,  but  a  distinct  and  direct  work  of  God's  hand. 

4.  With  this  teaching  of  Scripture,  the  doctrine  of  the  Christian  Church, 
and  specially  that  of  the  Dutch  Reformed,  agrees.2     In  order  to  prevent 
any   misconception,    Calvin    added    that    "man   is   non   substantia,    sed 
qualitate  Dei  progenies,"8  and  others  laid  particular  stress  on  the  fact  that 
he  was  made  "  e  nihilo,"  by  an  operation  of  God's  almighty  will.     This  truth 
had  already  been  dimly  presaged,  and  nobly  expressed  by  some  heathen 
poets  and  philosophers,*  in  opposition  to  the  foolish  arrogance  of  those  who 
considered  themselves  as  sprung  from  the  ground  on  which  they  lived.5 
In  reality,  too,  the   self-consciousness  of  man,  that  he,  however  closely 
allied  to  the  beast,  is  yet  in  his  inmost  being. something  different,  cannot 
be  better  explained,  than  by  assuming  that  we  really  are  God's  workman- 
ship in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word. 

5.  Naturalism,  however,  contests  this  position,  and  has  done  so  for  ages. 
Already  did  Lactantius  twit  the  Stoics  with  their  ignorance  in  regard  to 
the  creation  of  man  by  God,  combined  with  the  foolish  fancy  that  the  first 
rational  dwellers  on  the  earth  had  appeared  as  a  kind  of  mushroom  out 
of  the  ground,  "  putant  homines  in  omnibus  terris  et  agris  tanquam  fungos 
esse  generatos"  (Instt.   Divv.  vii.  4).     Never,  however,  has  the  attempt  to 
regard  man  as  a  merely  natural  result  of  a  lower  kind  of  creature,  been  so 
general  as  in  the  present  century.     Physicists  lend  a  helping  hand  to  the 
modern  theologians  in  proving  our  descent  from  a  closely  allied  kind  of 
animal ;  it  is  merely  a  question  whether  the  Gorilla,  or  the  Chimpanzee,  or 
the  Sapajou  is  to  be  our  forefather.      Even  in  Genesis  is  the  proof  found6 
that  the  first  men  as    shameless  beings  peered  down  from  between  the 
branches  of  the  forest  on  the  watch  for  other  beasts,  and  have  only  by 
slow   gradations   developed    into    discipline   and    order.     Not   incredible 
certainly,    if  nature,    as    Strauss    thinks,7    like    a   woman   in   the   bloom 
of  youth,  had  formerly  a  power  of  fertility  which  she  has  now  lost,  in  con- 
sequence of  which  there  sprang  from  inorganic  matter,  the  lower  organic. 


Compare  Neth.  Conf.  Art.  xiv. ;  H.  C.,  Ans.  6. 

Calv.  lust.,  i.  15,  5. 

See.  <-,i?.,  Acts  xvii.  28. 

aiTox^oi'es. 

Reville,  Manuel <f  Inst.  Kel.,  p.  1 86. 

Christ.  Glaubensl.,  i.,  p.  686. 


362  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

beings,  and  from  these  again  at  last,  after  an  infinite  variety  of  links,  man 
himself.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  declare  again  that  the  renowned  trans- 
mutation-theory of  Darwin  cannot  lead  to  any  other  results.  Enough  !  If 
all  these  voices  speak  the  truth,  then  may  the  psalmn-note,  "  God  made 
man  in  His  own  image,"  be  changed  into  the  song,  "  Great  is  the  Goddess 
of  Nature." 

6.  Faith,  however,  against  all  this  opposition,  has  no  reason  as  yet  to  feel 
ashamed  of  its  confession  that,  notwithstanding  the  close  union  which  exists 
everywhere  in  the  whole  Creation,  and  thus  joins  man  himself  to  the  lower 
links,  a  new,  a  separate  word,  has  here  been  spoken  by  the  almighty  Creator. 
The  Naturalistic  presentment  of  the  origin  of  man  is  an  hypothesis 
very  far  from  being  sufficiently  legitimated,  nay,  on  the  contrary,  weighed 
down  by  great  and  insuperable  difficulties.  However  often  it  may  be 
asserted,  it  still  remains  entirely  undemonstrated,  that  organic  beings  could 
spring  from  inorganic  matter ;  still  more  that  man  could  originate  from  the 
beasts.  The  so-called  "generatio  sequivoca"  is  so  little  proved,  that  the 
opposite  assertion,  "  omne  vivum  ex  ovo,"  has  even  within  the  latest  years 
gained  important  ground.  But  Naturalism,  which  seemed  to  have  determined 
that  a  miracle  could  by  no  means  be  allowed  at  the  beginning  of  our  race,  has 
advanced  over  mountains  of  difficulties,  as  if  they  were  mole  hills ;  and  even 
a  von  Humboldt  found  himself  compelled  to  express  his  dissatisfaction  at 
the  levity  with  which  Strauss  represented  our  first  parents  as  sprung  from 
"  the  Chaldaic  primeval  slime."  The  descent  of  men  from  apes  cannot  be 
demonstrated,  either  from  history,  since  nowhere  is  there  a  record  that 
during  thousands  of  years  one  beast  has  developed  itself  into  a  man ;  or 
from  natural  science,  since  it  cannot  show  the  indispensable  links  by  means 
of  which  the  transition  from  beast  to  man  is  explicable ;  or  from  the  peculiar 
constitution  of  man,  who  is  as  manifestly  born  to  walk  erect,  as  a  fish  is  to 
swim,  or  a  worm  to  creep,  and  who,  if  originally  a  four-footed  being,  would 
be  alike  the  most  unfortunate  and  most  ridiculous  of  all  beasts.  The 
immense  difference  between  man  and  beast  can  never  be  explained  by  the 
opposite  system,  and  equally  inexplicable  is  from  this  point  of  view  the 
origin  of  speech  and  language.  But  enough  has  been  already  said  for  our 
purpose,  of  a  theory,  which,  if  it  does  not  entirely  contest  the  existence  of 
the  living  God,  at  least  utterly  disregards  His  creative  working  in  its  highest 
domain,  and  so  must  not  only  lead  to  the  undermining  of  religion  and 
morality,  but — and  deservedly — at  the  same  time  to  the  abasement  of 
mankind  itself,  which  is  from  the  same  side  often  extravagantly  exalted. 
"  The  man  separated  from  God  becomes  a  Brute,  and  even  that  kind  of 
Brute,  to  which  we  are  accustomed  to  give  the  name  Beast"  (Zollmann). 
The  result  of  this  view  on  the  revealed  mystery  of  the  incarnation  of  the 
Logos,  can  only  be  thought  of  with  shuddering. 

Compare  BLUMENBACH,  Ein  Wort  zur  Beruhigung  in  einer  allgemeinen  Familicnangele- 
genheit  (1806)  ;  F.  DE  RouGEMONT,  De  Alensch  en  de  aaf,  of  het  Materialisme  onzer  dagtn. 
(Dutch  transl.),  1863;  GUIZOT,  Meditations,  i.  (1864),  P-  21>  -W-;  LUTHARDT,  Apol. 
Varies.  (1864),  p.  238,  sqq.;  FABRI,  Briefe  gegen  den  Materialismus  (1864),  P-  *95»  S<J7-! 
J.  GRIMM,  Utter  dot  Ursprung  der  Sprache,  6th  ed.  (1866) ;  N.  POULAIN,  Un  Christian- 
is  me  sans  dogmes,  etc.  (1864),  p.  121,  sqq.;  specially  TH.  ZoLLMANN,  a.  a.  0.  (cf.  p.  326), 
§§  148 — 160 ;  and  THOLUCK'S  article  in  Herzog,  i. 


HIS   ORIGIN.  363 

7.  To  the  question  as  to  the  antiquity  of  the  human   race,   Biblical 
Chronology  replies  that  it  has  not  yet  reached  its  sixtieth  century.  The  sacred 
chronology,  however,  here  and  there  presents  difficulties,  which  may  make 
us  hesitate  to  regard  the  chronological  question  as  a  dogmatic  one.     On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  evident  that  the  directly  contrary  assertions — even 
300,000  years  have  been  mentioned — are  not  free  from  great  exaggeration, 
and  have  arisen  from  an  evident  attempt  to  construct  the  history  of  man- 
kind in  a  form  wherein  every  supranatural  element  is  pushed  aside,  and 
a  romantic  embellishment  takes  the  place  of  history.     That  man  came  last 
of  all  the  dwellers  upon  earth  out  of  the  hands  of  the  Creator,  is  a  truth 
which  even  natural  science  has  strongly  vindicated,  and  is  after  all  the  most 
important  truth. 

8.  The  original  unify  of  the  human  race,  already  announced  on  the  first 
page  of  the  Bible,  is  .ilso  expressly  confirmed  by  Jesus  (Matt.  xix.  4),  and 
by  the  Apostle  Paul.8     There  is  not,  however,   the  slightest  reason  for 
assuming,  that  the  word  Adam  in  a  collective  sense9  should  serve  to  denote 
the  human  race,  and  thus  should  leave  room  for  the  hypothesis  of  the  con- 
temporaneous creation  of  several  human  pairs.10     The  Biblical  statement 
that  "  God  hath  made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men,"  finds  its  support 
in  the  principle  of  economy  which  the  Creator  always  pursues,  and  in  the 
observation  that  man  displays  God's  image,  even  in  the  fact  that  all  have 
sprung  from  one.     As  yet  natural  science  has  not  discovered  any  races  of 
men  so  completely  different,  that  it  is  really  impossible  to  regard  them  as 
branches  of  one  tree.     Perhaps  we  may  assume,  with  Kant,  that  already  in 
the  first  pair  there  were  present  in  preformation  the  germs  of  different  races, 
which  developed  under  the  influence  of  climate,  mode  of  life,  etc.,  into 
such  a  variety  of  forms.    From  influences  such  as  these  can  the  undeniable 
difference  be  to  a  remarkable  degree  explained,  and  the  continued  study  of 
the  history  of  religious  civilisation,  languages,  etc.,  constantly  points  back 
to  a  unity,  which  was  the  trunk  from  which  every  variety  sprang.      No 
wonder  then,  that  not  only  orthodox  theologians,  but  even  distinguished 
natural  philosophers,  (Buffon,  Linnaeus,  Blumenbach,  Wagner,  von  Schubert, 
Al.  von  Humbolclt,  De  Quatrefages,   Owen  Prichard,  and  many  others,) 
place  themselves  in  this  matter  on  the  side  of  the  Mosaic  narrative.     No 
careful  investigator  of  nature  will  at  least  reject  the  possibility  of  the  original 
unity  of  the  human  race,  which  the  theologian  accepts  on  the  testimony 
of  a  record  in  all  respects  trustworthy. 

Along  with  the  hypothesis  of  Co-Adamites,  we  may  reject  that  of 
Prae-Adamites,  which,  propounded  in  1655  by  J.  la  Peyrere  (in  an 
Exercit.  Exeg.  in  Rom.  v.  12),  was  afterwards  withdrawn.  His  assumption 
that  Adam  was  only  the  ancestor  of  the  people  of  Israel,  has  as  little 
exegetical  foundation  as  dogmatic  or  historic  value.  The  theory  of 
Autocthones  (Aborigines),  i.e.,  of  men  who  sprang  out  of  and  from  the 
ground  which  they  inhabited,  as  for  instance,  the  Athenians  believed  of 

Compare  Acts  xvii.  26  ;  Rom.  v.  12  ;  I  Cor.  xv.  21,  47 — 49. 

9       DT?' 

10  Compare  in  favour  of  and  against  this  explanation  the  articles  in  the  Godgd.  Bijdrag. 
(1870),  Nos.  6,  n,  and  12. 


364  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

themselves,  whereon  they  were  refuted  by  r  Paul  in  Acts  xvii.  26,  may  be 
described  as  in  absolute  opposition  to  Hoi;  Scripture.  Least  of  all  does 
Scripture  in  its  sober  and  holy  simplicity  favour  the  theosophic  repre- 
sentation that  in  the  original  man  the  sexual  distinction  was  as  yet  en- 
tirely wanting,  and  only  appeared  in  later  time.  Whatever  explanation 
may  be  given  to  the  narrative  of  the  creation  of  Eve,  it  must  always  be  re- 
garded as  the  filling  up  of  a  certain  void,  and  to  such  extent  as  an  increase 
of  the  happiness  of  Paradise ;  not  as  a  transition  from  a  higher  to  a  lower 
sensual  condition  in  the  first  man. 

9.  The  doctrine  of  the  original  unity  of  the  human  race  is  by  no  means 
a  matter  of  indifference   for   religious   and   moral  life.     By  it  the  high 
nobility  of  mankind  is  proved,11  by  it  the  original  equality  and  duty  of 
brotherly  love  is  shown,12  by  it  the  origin  and  complete  universality  of  sin 
is  declared,13  by  it  the   harmony  between  the  domain  of  Creation  and 
Redemption  is  announced,14  and  by  it  is  secured  the  truth  that  the  Kingdom 
of  God  will  come  to  all,  since  the  Gospel  without  distinction  must  be 
brought  to  every  human  being.15 

10.  At  the  close  of  this  investigation  there  can  be  no  doubt  where  man 
obtains  the  greatest  dignity — in  the  Holy  Scripture  which  represents  him  as 
a  born  King's  son,  or  in  the  school  of  Naturalism,  where  we  hear  the  echo 
of  the  "  eritis  sicut  Deus,"  but  where,  nevertheless,  is  secretly  whispered 
in  our  ears  that  the  oldest  man  has  probably  "  first  sucked  at  the  teats  of 
an  ape."     Above  the  ape-garden,  with  its  abundant  varieties,  Paradise  still 
continues  to  attract  us  through  the  transparent  cloud  which  surrounds  it  on 
every  side. 

Compare,  as  to  the  original  unity  of  the  human  race,  an  important  treatise  by 
SCHROEDER  v.  D.  KOLK,  in  Waarkeid  in  Liefde  (1845),  i.  ;  A.  DE  QUATREFAGE,  L'unite 
de  F espece  humaine,  Revue  des  deux  Mondes  (1860);  ZOCKLER,  Die  einheitl  Abstammung 
des  Menschengeschlcchts  in  the  Deutsche  Jahrbuchfiir  '1  heol.  (1862),  i. ;  C.  DE  TOULOUSE, 
Sur  f  origine  et  Vane,  de  V Ilomme,  in  the  Revue  C/iret.  (1864),  p.  572,  sqq. ;  G.  MOORE,  The 
First  Man  and  his  place  in  Creation  (1866)  j  P.  JANET,  De  eenheid  van  het  menschdom  op 
zedelijk  gtbied  (1869). 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Further  definition  of  the  faculties  which  distinguish  man  from  every  other  beast  upon 
earth. — Explanation  and  comparison  of  the  two  oldest  Biblical  accounts  of  the  origin  of 
man. — How  did  the  first  man  learn  to  speak? — Was  the  first  man  a  kind  of  hermaphro- 
dite ? — The  creation  of  woman. 


11  Acts  xvii.  28.  14  i  Cor.  xv.  21,  22. 

12  Matt.  vii.  12 ;  Luke  x.  30—37.  ls  Eph.  i  10 ;  Matt,  xxviii.  19. 
"  Rom.  v.  12, 


HIS   NATURE. 


SECTION  LXVII. — HIS  NATURE. 

Man  is  both  a  sensuous  and  a  spiritual  being,  allied  by  his  body 
to  the  dust  of  the  earth,  by  his  spirit  to  God,  the  Father  of  Spirits  ; 
a  personality,  according  to  its  whole  organisation,  in  all  its  parts, 
activities,  and  forces,  definitely  suited  for  a  life  in  communion  with 
God.  On  this  ground,  Christian  Anthropology,  developed  by  the 
light  of  Holy  Scripture  and  spiritual  experience,  cannot  but  reject, 
as  well  a  one-sided  Spiritualism  as  a  spiritless  Materialism. 

1.  In  the  investigation  into  the  nature  of  man,  closely  allied  as  it  is  to 
that  into  his  origin,  our  glance  is  of  itself  first  turned  to  his  corporeity.     If 
natural  science  makes  us  acquainted  with  the  different  elements  of  which 
it  is  composed,  Holy  Scripture  teaches  us  that  the  body  was  taken  from 
the  dust  of  the  earth,  in  consequence  of  a  special  creative  act  of  God,1  and 
thus  in  this  way  testifies  both  to  the  greatness  and  littleness  of  man.     No- 
where, however,  in  it  is  the  representation  made,  or  justified,  that  the  body 
was  to  be  the  prison  of  the  soul,  a  hindrance  to  moral  development.    On  the 
contrary,  the  corporeity  obtains  here  its  right  and  dignity,  as  not  merely 
the  bearer,  but  an  indispensable  element  of  the  whole  personality  of  man. 
Only  from  the  scriptural  standpoint  must  we,  in  a  more  accurate  manner 
than  has  hitherto  often  been  done,  distinguish  between  body  (o-tS^a)  as  a 
material  organism,  composed  of  different  parts,  and  flesh  (<rapf),  animal 
substance  through  which  the  blood  flows.     This  distinction,  in  itself  already 
just,  is  of  great  importance,  especially  in  the  domain  of  Hamartology  and 
Eschatology. 

2.  The  spiritual  side  of  our  being  is,  however,  definitely  distinguished 
from  the  material,  and  according  to  the  sacred  narrative  is  of  an  essen- 
tially higher  origin.2     God  is  the  God  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh,3  and  that  spirit 
returns  at  the  hour  of  death  to  Him,  even  where  the  body  returns  to  the 
earth.4     The  Biblical  Anthropological  standpoint  is  thus  not  monistic,  but 
thoroughly  dualistic ;  in  this  sense,  however,  that  the  higher  and  the  lower  are 
not  merely  outwardly  connected,  but  combined  into  a  living  unity.  The  body 
is  evidently  adapted  to  serve  the  spirit ;  the  spirit  to  rule  over  the  body.     It 
is  unnecessary  here  to  collect  and  decide  upon  all  the  signs  which  the 
sacred  writers  give  as  to  the  Physiological  and  Psychological  side  of  our 
personality.      For  Christian   Dogmatics  in   particular  it  is  an  important 
question  whether  by  the  light  of  Holy  Scripture  we  must   regard   that 
personality  as  dichotomistic  or  trichotomistic ;  in  other  words,  whether  we 
must  again  distinguish  man's  soul  from  his  spirit,  or  must  consider  them 

1  Gen.  ii.  7.  *  Heb.  xii.  9;  compare  Num.  xvi.  22. 

*  Gen.  ii.  7.  4  Eccles.  xii.  7. 


366  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

identical.  If  we  accept  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul,  there  seems  no  doubt  but 
that  the  question  must  be  answered  in  the  former  sense.5  Even  where  it 
appears  that  there  are  other  passages  in  Scripture  which  seem  to  favour  a 
more  dualistic  presentment,  yet  the  trichotomistic  seems  to  us  preferable,  on 
internal  psychological  grounds ;  and  we  cannot  be  surprised  that,  already 
shadowed  forth  by  the  Platonic  and  Cabbalistic  Philosophy,  it  has  also  found 
support  and  defence  by  the  Fathers,  as  Irenseus,  Justin  Martyr,  Tatian, 
Melito,  Origen,  and  others.  It  would  probably  have  met  with  still  more 
general  support,  had  not  the  dread  of  Apollinarianism,  which  also  appealed 
to  this  distinction,  made  the  Orthodox  Church  afterwards  averse  to  it.  If 
we  accept  it,  we  must  then  understand  by  soul  the  lower  principle  of  life  in 
the  body,  specially  in  the  blood,  which  man  has  in  common  with  the  beasts ; 
by  spirit,  the  higher  rational  and  moral  principle,  which  is  only  found  in  man. 
"  Man  is  soul,6  and  has  spirit,"  says  von  Schubert.  We  must  only  take  care 
not  to  consider  spirit  in  this  sense  exclusively  as  an  element  in  the  personality 
of  the  Christian,  but  of  every  man,  in  whom  the  originally  human  element  is 
by  sin  corrupted,  but  not  maimed  or  diminished ;  a  view  moreover  in  which 
St.  Paul  precedes  us,  as  he  also  extends  to  the  spirit  the  demand  for  trans- 
formation of  the  mind.7 

3.  Concerning  the  origin  of  each  human  spirit,  and  the  manner  in  which 
it  unites  itself  to  the  body,  Holy  Scripture  has  remained  silent,  and  the 
theories  have  at  all  times  been  very  various.  We  find  that  of  the  more 
cultivated  heathen  put  forth,  among  others,  by  Cicero  in  the  Tusculan  Dis- 
putations i.  9,  10,  who  comes  to  this  conclusion:  "harum  sententiarum 
qu?e  vera  sit,  Deus  aliquis  viderit ;  quae  verosimillima,  magna  qusestio  esf 
In  the  Christian  Church  three  theories  have  gradually  been  formed, 
(i.)  That  of  Pr<z- existence,  i.e.,  the  doctrine  that  the  souls,  already  in  fore- 
time created  by  God,  unite  themselves  with  the  body  at  the  birth  ;  this, 
originally  held  by  Plato  and  Philo,  was  accepted  by  Justin  Martyr 
Theodoret,  Origen,  etc.,  but  was  condemned  at  Constantinople  in  the  6th 
century,  as  a  heresy  of  the  last  named  ;  in  our  days  it  has  been  emphatically 
defended  by  J.  Miiller  in  his  Lehre  v.  d.  Siinde,  ii.  §  92,  sqq.,  following  in 
the  steps  of  Kant  and  Schelling.  (2.)  That  of  Creation,  i.e.,  the  doctrine 
that  ever  afresh  at  the  formation  of  new  bodies  new  souls  were  created  by 
God ;  this  was  held  by  Aristotle,  Jerome,  Pelagius,  most  Romish  and  Re- 
formed Theologians,  Calixtus  and  the  orthodox  Reformed  Church  of  the  i  yth 
century.  (3.)  That  of  Traduction,  i.e.,  the  theory  that  along  with  the  bodies 
the  souls  of  the  fathers  were  transferred  to  the  children  "per  traducem,  vel  per 
propaginem;"  Tertullian  propounded  this  theory  inhis  treatise  de  Anima,  c.  19, 
and  it  has  been  supported  in  earlier  and  later  times  by  many,  specially  in  the 
interests  of  the  dogma  of  original  sin  ;  not,  however,  by  Augustine,  who  often 
showed  his  hesitation  to  determine  anything  in  this  domain.  In  reality,  the 
whole  of  this  question  lies  on  the  very  border,  if  not  beyond  the  limits,  of 
human  investigation;  and  where  an  appeal  has  been  made  from  both  sides 

s  Compare  I  Thess.  v.  23,  with  Heb.  iv.  12,  I  Cor.  xv.  45,  and  the  entire  contrast 
between  the  dvffp.  ^i^i/c6s  and  irvfVfiaTiK&s,  l  Cor.  ii.  14,  and  similar  passages,  as  well  as 
Jude  19. 

6  i  Cor.  xv.  45. 

7  Rom.  xii.  2  ;  Eph.  iv.  23  ;  2  Cor.  vii.  I. 


HIS  NATURE.  367 

to  different  words  of  Holy  Scripture  in  favour  of  any  of  these  propositions, 
we  must  not  overlook  the  fact  that  such  problems  do  not  belong  to  the' 
domain  in  which  the  word  of  Revelation  speaks  with  decisive  authority. 

4.  Enough,  if  we   can   present  to  ourselves   the   being  of  man  as  a 
personality,  just  thereby  definitely  distinguished  from  all  other  living  beings 
on  the  earth.     In  the  brute  world  we  may  here  and  there  discover  an 
evident  striving  after  individuality,  in  man  first  we  see   the  properly  so 
called  individuality  developed,  and  indeed  we  too  often  find  individualism 
predominating.     That  personality  is  revealed  in  the  fact,   that  man  has 
understanding  and   will;    two  sides  of  his  being,  whose  proper  centre, 
according  to  the  representation  of  Holy  Scripture,  is  found  in  the  heart 
(ib,  KapSla).     Here  lies  the  well-spring  of  life,8  the  secret  laboratory,  where  as 
well  the  thought  of  the  understanding,  as  the  inclination  of  the  will,  is  born. 
In  that  heart  conscience*  holds  her  fixed  seat ;  she  was  in  no  way  first 
roused  in  the  sinner  after  the  fall ;  but  must  be  conceived  as  conscieniia  sui 
et  legis,  an  original  and  indefeasible  element  of  our  being,  the  source  of  all 
our  knowledge  of  God  and  of  ourselves  as  moral  creatures,  and  by  a 
normal  development  the  arbiter  of  all  our  will  and  action.     There  can  be 
no  doubt  that,  according  to  the  united  utterance  of  Scripture  and  self- 
consciousness,  we  must  grant  to  man  the  power  of  the  will,  or  that  of  free 
self-determination.     If  through  the  dominion  of  sin  freedom  in  the  higher 
sense  of  the  word  has  been  lost,10  the  freedom  of  choice  (the  formal  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  moral) — in  other  words,  the  power  to  will  what  our  heart 
desires,  without  the  existence  of  any  power  external  to  ourselves  to  compel 
us  in  the  contrary  direction — is  still  more  presupposed  than  announced  in 
so  many  words  in  Holy  Scripture.11     With  this  consciousness  of  having  in 
many  cases  not  only  been  called,  but  of  having  been  able,  to  act  in  a 
different  way,  the  working  of  the  conscience  stands  in  such  direct  connec- 
tion, that,  if  this  consciousness  be  denied,  it  immediately  becomes  a  chimera. 
Upon  the  exclusively  intellectual  line  this  freedom  of  choice  may  easily  be 
denied,  but  from  the  deeper  psychological  and  spiritual  empiric  standpoint  it 
will  ever  be  recognised  again.     "Conscience  cuts  the  knot,  which  the  intel- 
lect is  unable  to  untie,  and  without  troubling  itself  with  proving  how  man  is 
free,  it  establishes  the  fact  of  that  freedom  by  an  instinctive  revelation  and 
inward  feeling.     We  feel  that  we  are   free,  just  as  we  feel  that  we  exist " 
(A.  Monod). 

5.  That  which  strikes  us  most,  when  considering  the  being  of  man,  is, 
that  he  is  entirely  fitted  for  life  in  personal  communion  with  God.12  All 
the  lines,  which  are  drawn  from  the  periphery  of  his  being,  meet  in  God 
as  their  common  centre.13  The  understanding  cannot  rest  in  an  endless 
chain  of  mediate  causes,  until  it  has  climbed  to  the  highest  cause  of  all. 
The  feeling  of  the  beautiful,  the  true,  the  good,  remains  unsatisfied  until 
He  is  found,  in  whom  the  highest  beauty  and  truth  and  goodness  are 
united.  The  will  first  gains  real  freedom,  when  it  willingly  submits  itself  to 
Him,  on  whom  man  is  indefinitely  dependent ;  whilst  on  the  contrary  sin, 

8  Frov.  iv.  23 ;  xxiii.  26.  "  See  Josh.  xxiv.  15  ;  Isa.  Iv.  6,  sqq. 

9  ffvvfiS-r)ffis,  Heb.  x.  22  ;  compare  §  x.  8.          "  Compare  §  xxii.  3. 

10  John  viii.  34—36.  lf  Ps.  Ixxiii.  25,  26. 


368  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

as  a  foreign  power,  leads  him  to  that  which  he  in  his  innermost  nature  wills 
not.14  Thus  is  being  man,  on  the  one  side,  an  actuality ;  on  the  other,  only 
a  design  for  a  voluntary  life  in  God ;  and  where  this  design  is  not  realised, 
that  peculiarity  which  distinguishes  man  from  stone,  plant,  or  beast,  is 
gradually  destroyed.  At  the  same  time  it  is  seen  here,  "  Man  would  not 
be  the  most  excellent  upon  earth,  if  he  were  not  too  excellent  for  it " 
(Goethe). 

6.  From  the  purely  Christian-anthropological  standpoint  must  be  main- 
tained, against  every  spiritualistic  and  materialistic  partiality,  the  right  of 
each  of  the  two  sides  in  the  inseparable  human  being.  Against  the  first- 
named,  which  had  already  shown  itself  in  the  Apostolic  age,15  and  which 
appeared  afterward  in  different  forms  in  the  Ascetics,  Anchorites, 
Spiritualists  and  Puritans,  Holy  Scripture  teaches  the  right  and  duty  of  a 
becoming  enjoyment  of  life,16  accompanied  by  a  scrupulous  care  and  preserva- 
tion of  the  body.17  Against  the  selfish  emancipation  of  the  flesh,  already 
condemned  by  St.  Paul,18  but  exalted  as  the  highest  wisdom  by  the  Material- 
ism of  earlier  times,  as  well  as  of  the  present  day,  the  spiritual  is  everywhere 
represented  here  as  the  highest,  on  behalf  of  which  the  lower  must  neces- 
sarily be  denied  and  sacrificed.19  The  truth,  which  lies  at  the  root  both 
of  Spiritualism  and  Materialism,  is  recognised  by  the  Bible,  but  its  one- 
sided conception  and  perverted  application  is  combated  by  the  light  of  a 
higher  truth,  and  the  nature  of  man  is  unriddled  by  pointing  him  to  his 
highest  destination. 

Comp.  T.  J.  VAN  GRIETHUYZEN,  Diss.  de  notion,  vocab.  <rdfj.a  et  <rdp£  (1846).  Upon 
the  entire  physiological  portion  of  Biblical  Anthropology,  S.  HOEKSTRA,  in  the  Jaarb. 
v.  IV.  Th.,  vii.  As  to  the  Trichotomy,  F.  C.  VAN  DEN  HAM,  in  the  same  periodical,  V., 
P-  3>  sffl-  Further,  in  addition  to  the  literature  in  §  x.,  J.  T.  BECK,  Untriss  der  Bibl. 
Seelenlehre,  2  Aufl.  (1862);  F.  DELITZSCH,  System  der  Christl.  Psyckologie,  2  Aufl. 
(1862) ;  CH.  SECRETAN,  Philosophic  de  la  Liberte  (2nd  ed.,  1866)  ;  J.  B.  HEARD,  The 
Tripartite  Nature  of  Man  (2nd  ed.). 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Extent,  reasons  for,  and  importance  of  the  distinction  between  o-w/ua  and  ffap£  in  the 
language  of  the  Bible. — Is  the  trichotomy  of  man  taught  by  other  sacred  writers  than  St, 
Paul  ? — Further  elucidation  of  the  Biblical  representation  of  heart,  understanding,  con- 
science, etc. — Is  there  then  reason  to  regard  the  icvevna.  as  an  integral  element  of  the 
personality,  not  only  of  the  Christian,  but  of  every  man? — In  what  sense,  in  accordance 
with  the  teaching  of  Holy  Scripture,  must  we  ascribe  freedom  to  the  human  will  ? — What 
value  must  generally  be  attributed  to  the  Biblical  presentment  of  man's  being  ? 

14  Rom.  vii.  18—24.  17  I  Cor.  vi.  14,  sqq. 

Is  Col.  ii.  21 — 23  ;  compare  I  Tim.  iv.  8.  l8  I  Cor.  xv.  32. 

w  Eccles.  ix.  9 ;  I  Tim.  iv.  4.  "  Matt.  x.  39 ;  Gal.  v.  24. 


HIS  DESTINATION.  369 


SECTION   LXVIII. — HIS  DESTINATION. 

Man  is  destined  to  realise  the  design  of  his  nature,  that  is,  as 
citizen  of  a  spiritual  Kingdom,  in  conjunction  with  others,  to  seek  God 
to  glorify  Him,  and  to  become  continually  more  conformed  to  Him. 
In  this  his  endless  destination  lies  the  surest  warrant  of  his  personal 
duration,  even  after  the  death  of  the  body.  This  hope  of  immor- 
tality cannot  be  proved  syllogistically,  any  more  than  the  existence 
of  God ;  but,  from  the  Christian  Theistic  standpoint,  it  can  still  less 
be  doubted.  It  is  the  natural  fruit  of  belief  in  the  living  God,  and  of 
the  consciousness  of  a  spiritual  relation  to  Him,  over  which  death 
has  no  power. 

1.  It  has  been  already  seen,  from  the  consideration  of  the  nature  of  man, 
that  his  proper  destination  lies  in  the  moral-religious  domain.     Holy  Scrip- 
ture,1 as  well  as  our  own  self-consciousness,  gives  testimony  to  this  destination. 
Man  is  then  first  really  man,  when  he  has  become  a  man  of  God.     We  must 
not,   however,   here   overlook  the  fact   that  this  destiny,2  though  in  the 
highest  degree  personal,  is  not  separated  from,  but  is  first  attained  in  com- 
munion with,  our  fellow-men.     A  religious,  but  also  a  social  being,  man  is 
designed  and  intended  for  the  Kingdom  of  God,  which  on  this  account 
must  be  the  proper  object  of  his  endeavours.8     The  question  is  only, 
whether  this  destiny  can  be  realised  even  on  this  side  of  the  grave,  and 
if  not,  whether  there  is  reason  to  expect  that  it  will  be  attained  in  another 
and  higher  life.     In  other  words,  it  is  the  question  as  to  the  immortality 
of  man. 

2.  The  idea  of  immortality,  with  which  we  are  here  concerned,  from  the 
nature  of  the  case  cannot  easily  be  determined.     We  do  not  use  this  word 
in  the  pantheistic  sense  of  a  return  to  and  a  resolution  into  God,  by  which 
the  entire  personality  is  destroyed  ;  but  we  think  in  connection  with  it  of 
the  self-conscious  continuance  of  the  individual  after  the  death  of  the  body. 
Every  other  use  of  the  word,  in  the  sense  maintained  by  Spinoz-a  and  Hegel, 
is  a  lamentable  play  upon  words.     Immortality  is  not  merely  the  continuance 
of  life,  but  also  of  the  sense  of  life. 

3.  The  belief  in  immortality  in  this  sense,  as  a  continuance  of  life,  is  almost 
as  old  as  humanity,  and  not  less  universal  than  belief  in  God ;  so  old 
and  universal,  that  some  have  even  spoken  here  of  an  instinctive  feeling 
(Fichte),    while    others   again    (J.   Muller)  have    lately    appealed   to    an 
original  revelation,  in  order  to  explain  it.      Amidst  the  most  uncivilised 

1  Amos  v.  6 ;  Matt.  v.  48;  John  xvii.  3.  *  I  Tim.  vi.  n. 

*  Luke  xii.  33  ;  compare  Matt,  xiil  44 — 46. 

B  B 


3/0  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

tribes  we  meet  with  traces  of  it ;  and  philosophy,  too,  has  before  the 
time  of  Christ,  specially  by  Plato  in  his  Phredo,  most  emphatically  pleaded 
for  it.  With  Israel  the  hope  of  immortality  forms  no  part  of  the  Mosaic 
revelation  of  God  :  it  is  not  the  contrast  between  the  present  and  the  future 
life,  but  that  between  the  people  of  the  Lord  and  the  Gentiles  :  it  is  not 
the  individual  but  the  national  life  which  there  is  everywhere  made  most 
prominent.  And  yet  expressions  such  as  "  was  gathered  unto  his  people,"4 
and  customs  such  as  the  forbidding  of  exorcism  of  the  dead,  sufficiently 
testify  that  this  life  was  by  no  means  regarded  by  every  one  as  the  end 
of  existence,  and  thus  the  hope  of  the  most  exalted  saints  was  at  least 
raised  higher  than  the  gates  of  death.5  In  a  special  degree  jast  before  and 
pre-eminently  after  the  Babylonian  exile  did  this  hope,  though  often  hidden 
under  very  sensuous  forms,6  become  the  common  property  of  the  nation, 
being  only  disputed  by  the  Sadducees.7  Everywhere,  where  Christianity 
penetrated,  the  belief  in  immortality  became  at  once  more  universal,  more 
firm,  and  more  clear,  than  it  had  ever  before  been.8  In  opposition  to  the 
gloomy  idea  (specially  to  be  observed  in  Baddhism),  "  Death  is  better  than 
Life,"  was  here  the  fixed  certainty,  that  life  is  revealed  and  secured ; 
and  the  obligation  which  even  in  this  respect  the  world  owes  to  the 
Gospel  of  the  Cross,  is  one  which  cannot  be  overrated.  "Just  as  Chris- 
tianity first  made  man  and  the  human  race  worthy  of  and  suited  to  true 
spiritual  immortality ;  so  has  it  first  proclaimed  the  right  belief  in  it,  and 
this  it  could  and  must  do,  since  thereby  man  first  gained  the  power  of 
living  in  this  eternal  world  of  the  spirit,  and  becoming  happy  through  it. 
The  promise  and  the  fulfilment  here  coincide"  (Fichte). 

4.  The  proof  of  this  hope  cannot,  however,  be  drawn  out  in  a  strictly 
scientific  form.  We  are  not  here  in  the  domain  of  exact  science,  but  in 
that  of  pious  faith,  and  we  cannot  be  surprised  that  this  faith  has  in  every 
age  been  as  strongly  disputed  as  defended.  The  history  of  philosophy 
proves  that  no  one  has  ever  yet  succeeded  in  producing  a  proof  which 
has  rendered  all  contradiction  absolutely  impossible ;  and  also,  that  where 
this  last  gave  way  for  a  moment,  it  again  reappeared  with  fresh  force.9 
Nor  is  this  surprising;  nature  may  furnish  us  with  her  symbols  of  revival 
after  death  (spring  after  winter,  etc.) ;  she  may  arouse  a  presentiment  of  new 
life,  and  confirm  the  hopes  already  aroused ;  but  she  cannot  give  any  real 
certainty.  We  are  here  concerned  with  the  continued  life  of  an  identical 
personality,  and  the  shooting  forth  of  ever  new  leaves  on  the  same  tree 
cannot  possibly  prove  this. — Of  the  soul  we  know  too  little  to  find,  by  an 
appeal  to  its  constitution,  sufficient  ground  for  our  demonstration ;  we 
cannot  even  represent  to  ourselves  this  soul,  or  its  independent  con- 
tinuance separated  from  the  bodily  life  ;  and  the  uncertain  can  hardly  be 
proved  by  the  unknown. — If  we  appeal  to  the  disharmony  between  virtue 

*  Gen.  xlix.  33. 

"  Job.  xix,  25;  Ps.  xvi.  10,  II;  xvii.  15,  etc. 

Luke  xiv.  15. 

Acts  xxiii.  6 — 8. 

2  Tim.  i.  10. 

Compare  the  account  of  Cicero's  experience  with  respect  to  the  Phaecio  of  Plato, 
Tusc.  Quastt.  i.  n. 


HIS   DESTINATION.  371 

and  happiness,  we  involuntarily  confuse  this  last  with  prosperity,  and 
overlook  the  fact  that  the  truly  pious  man  has  an  internal  peace,  which 
counterbalances,  for  himself  at  least,  all  the  luxury  of  the  sinner. — If  we 
speak  of  the  beneficent  force  of  this  hope,  this,  even  where  it  is  fully 
recognised,  does  not  yet  prove  its  certainty.  The  immortality  of  the  hope 
might  be  full  well  explained,  even  where  the  hope  of  immortality  has 
perished. 

5.  The  foundation  of  this   hope  can  only  be  shown  where  it  is  most 
closely  united   with  a  living  belief  in  a  personal  God.     When  separated 
from     this,    it    falters,    or    assumes    an   irreligious    egoistical    character. 
Man   would    at    last  cease   to    seek   after    God,   if  he  were   only  able 
to   save  himself.     But  in  opposition  to  such  a  hope  of  eternity,  utterly 
untrue  and  immoral,  there  is  a  pious  belief  in  immortality,  which  is  then 
most   powerful    where   man    is    assured   of   God,    and   of  His  personal 
revelation  of  salvation.     We  cannot  therefore  be  surprised  that,  from  the 
standpoint  of  Naturalism,  the   hope  of  which   we  are  treating  is  either 
disputed  as  something  uncertain,  or  put  aside  as  a  matter  of  indifference. 
It  is  only  in  consequence  of  a   happy  inconsistency  which   does   more 
credit  to  the  heart  than  to  the  head  of  its  supporters,  that  a  portion  of  the 
"modern"  theologians  still  cling  to  it.     It  first  gains  its  highest  justi- 
fication from  the  Christian  Theistic  standpoint,  as  indeed  might  well  be 
expected  beforehand. 

6.  The  possibility  of  an  eternal  destination  is  grounded  in  the  nature  and 
essence  of  the  human  spirit,  as  distinguished  from  its  material  body.     The 
materialistic  theory,   that  what  we  call  spirit  is  merely  a  function  of  the 
bodily  organism,  is  not  proven,  but  is  rather  encumbered  with  insuperable 
difficulties.    From  none  of  the  chemical  elements  of  the  body  can  anything 
be  discovered  which  in  the  least  degree  resembles  the  life  of  the  soul.    The 
spirit  is  indeed  in  many  respects  dependent  on  the  body,  and  vice  versa; 
but  even  that  dependence    testifies  of   original  difference,  just    as    this 
difference  tells  of  mutual  independence.     The  spirit  is   a   simple,  not  a 
compound  being  ;  but  that  only  which  is  compounded  can  resolve  itself 
or  be  dissolved.      However  much  of  obscurity  there  may  be  here,  even 
when  we  do  not  lose  sight  of  the  distinction  between  soul  and  spirit,  this 
is  clear,  that  there  is  nothing  in  what  we  know  of  the  spirit-life  of  man- 
kind which  forbids,  and  much  which  compels,  us  to  think  of  an  eternal 
destination. 

7.  This  belief  also  becomes  in  the  highest  degree  probable  on  moral- 
religious  grounds.      The  recognition   of   God's    supremacy   excludes    the 
representation  that  man  might  by  a  voluntary    deed    entirely   annihilate 
himself,  and  thus  after  the  greatest  misdeeds  withdraw  himself  from  the 
hands  of  the  supreme  Judge.— God's  justice  demands  that  the  balance 
between  virtue  and  happiness  should  not  only  be  preserved  and  restored 
in  secret,  but  should  be  revealed  and  maintained  in  the  sight  of  all;  this 
certainly  is  not  done,  or  is  only  imperfectly  effected,  on  this  side  of  the 
grave.     However  much  it  may  be  the  judgment  of  the  world,  the  history 
of  the  world  cannot  be  the  final  judgment— The  holiness  of  God  requires 
that  we  should  choose  the  good  unconditionally,  even  before  life  itself 
this  requirement  would  be  unreasonable,  and  self-denial  would  be  alike  a 

B  D  2 


3/2  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

crime  and  a  folly,  if  it  led  to  complete  self-annihilation.10 — The  wisdom 
of  God  would  not  have  provided  man  with  a  pre-eminent  moral  disposition, 
if  the  term  of  his  existence  had  been  limited  to  this  life.  It  is  the  most 
highly  developed  minds  which  find  themselves  here  least  satisfied ;  and 
who,  at  their  highest  attainment,  would  desire  to  be  able  to  begin,  not 
only  once  again,  but  even  in  an  infinitely  better  way.  Life  is  an 
indispensable  condition  for  the  attainment  of  the  very  highest,  the  moral 
ideal,  and  death  is  only  beneficial,  in  so  far  as  it  is  a  change.  Can  then 
God's  most  excellent  creature  be  condemned  to  the  fate  of  a  Prometheus 
or  a  Tantalus?  No  proper  teleological  view  of  life  can  limit  itself  to  this 
side  of  the  grave. — The  goodness  of  God,  finally,  would  not  have  implanted 
so  deeply  in  our  hearts  this  desire  for  continuance,  if  that  desire  must 
continue  unsatisfied  for  ever.  The  fear  of  death  makes  man  much  more 
unhappy  than  the  beast,  if  there  be  no  immortality.  The  desire  for  life, 
even  in  cases  where  we  cannot  any  longer  speak  of  a  physical  enjoyment  of 
life,  proves  that  death  in  the  absolute  sense  of  the  word  must  be  called 
something  contrary  to  nature.  The  satiety  of  life,  which  is  observable  in 
some  people,  does  not  prove  the  cent-try,  since  it  is  just  the  opposite  of 
real  satisfaction.  Men  are  satiated  with  this  form  of  life,  because  they  have 
not  found  life  in  it ;  they  are  satiated  with  the  esse,  not  with  the  vivere, 
which  is  the  highest  aspiration  of  the  soul.  Here,  if  anywhere,  the  aspiration 
proves  the  reality  of  the  object  of  desire.  What  a  striking  revelation  of  the 
infinite  is  already  given  in  the  longing  feeling  of  "  Heimweh  "  for  a  better 
life  !  If  now  in  addition  to  all  this  we  add  the  proof  e  contrario,  in  other 
words,  if  we  ask  what  men  must  accept  when  they  reject  this  view,  and 
what  is  lost  where  this  hope  is  buried,  men  will  certainly  think  long  before 
they  place  an  expectation  like  this  on  the  list  of  vain  follies,  and  will  confess 
that  the  "non  omnis  moriar"  of  Christian  faith  has  no  slight  basis  for  its 
immovable  expectation. 

8.  Still  this  only  thus  becomes  infallibly  certain  when  the  believer  is 
conscious  of  his  life  in  personal  communion  with  God.  Hence  belief 
in  immortality  is  always  shaken  at  a  time,  and  in  a  community,  which  has 
lost  the  profound  perception  of  a  living  and  holy  God;  v'lst,  on  the 
cor.trary,  Christian  belief  has  assured  itself  that  "  death  cannot  separate  it 
from  the  love  of  God."11  We  see  already  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  O'd  Testament 
the  one  most  closely  joined  to  the  other,12  and  Jesus  Himself,  in  His  well- 
known  discourse  with  the  Sadducees13  has  specially  placed  this  proof  in 
the  foreground,  when  He  calls  God  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  the 
God  of  the  living.  Where  God  once  enters  into  personal  communion  of 
life  with  man,  there  He  makes  him  also  a  partaker  of  His  own  life.  A 
personal  befng,  who  is  the  object  of  God's  love,  cannot  be  designed  for 
annihilation.  That  is  the  guidepost,  as  even  Lessing,  among  others, 
has  allowed,  which  the  observant  eye  can  discover  in  the  words,  "  the  God 
of  Abraham,  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob."  Hence,  too,  we  do  not  meet  with 

10  See  Matt.  x.  39;  compare  Cic.,  Tusc.  Quastt.  i.  15. 

11  Rom.  viii.  38,  39. 

12  Gen.  xlix.  18;  Ps.  Ixxiii.  25,  26. 
11  Matt.  xxii.  23 — 32. 


HIS   DESTINATION. 


373 


the  slightest  trace  of  doubt  upon  this  point  in  Him,  who  always  lived  in 
communion  with  the  Father.14  And  they  who  believe  in  Him  are  by  Him 
assurtd,  not  only  of  God,  but  of  their  own  eternal  life.  All  that  God  has 
done  in  Christ  to  bring  about  a  personal  relation  between  Himself  and  tne 
sinner,  by  the  way  of  revelation  and  reconciliation,  seems  a  mere  folly, 
if  man  is  not  designed  for  an  infinite  life  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word. 
Even  the  way  in  which  God  upholds,  preserves,  and  perfects  that  re/afio/i,  by 
all  the  leadings  of  His  grace,  becomes  both  arbitrary  and  aimless,  if  "  in  th.s 
life  only  we  have  hope  in  Christ."  If  it  be  said  that  a  certainty  founded 
on  such  grounds  is  after  all  subjective ;  we  know  not  what  else  it  could  be 
or  need  be,  as  long  as  it  may,  notwithstanding,  become  the  property  of 
all.  If  further  it  be  alleged  in  opposition,  that  in  this  view  immortality  is 
nothing  but  a  sentiment,  which  is  only  realised  where  one  begins  personally 
to  live  in  God  ;  this  is  perfectly  true  as  regards  the  happiness  of  the  future,16 
but  we  must  then  remember,  that  the  creation  of  man  in  the  image  of 
God,16  when  duly  established,  is  at  the  same  time  a  warrant  for  his  personal 
eternity,  so  long  as  the  image  is  not  destroyed. 

9.  The  importance  of  a  clear  and  well-founded  belief  in  an  eternal  destina- 
tion can  scarcely  be  overrated.  It  elevates,  comforts,  and  sanctifies  man 
with  a  peculiar  power,  whilst  the  resistance  of  it  ordinarily  brings  about  the 
most  unfortunate  results  for  religion  and  morality,  as  well  as  for  the  cause 
of  true  humanity.  Happily  for  us,  that  the  words  of  Kant  seem  appli- 
cable to  much  of  the  polemics  of  the  Materialism  of  these  days  :  "  The 
drum  attracts  attention  because  it  is — empty." 

Comp.  D.  WYTTENBACH,  De  doctrina  vet.  Philosopliorum  de  immortal,  animi,  Teylcr's 
Godg.,  Gen.  iv. ;  C.  J.  VAN  ASSEN,  Over  Leven,  Geluk,  en  Dood,  naar  de  begrippcn  der 
Ouden  (1850) ;  J.  MEYER,  De  vi,  quam  haluit  itisiitutum  Mosaicum  in  Hebraorum  de 
rebus  p.  m.  fut.  opinwnes  (1835);  J.  L.  C.  ScHRoEDER  V.  D.  KOLK,  Het  venc/iil  tusschen 
doode  natuurkrachten,  lev'enskrachUn,  en  ziel  (1835);  J.  MULLER,  Unsterblichkeitsglaube 
unit  Auferstchungshoffnung  (1855);  M.  S.  POLAK,  Die  Unsterblichkeitsfrage  (1857)  ;  E. 
NAVILLE,  La  vie  iterndle  (1861);  BAGENAULT  DE  PUCHESSE,  L'immortalitf,  la  mart,  ct 
la  vie  (1864) ;  C.  R.  PFAFF,  Ideen  fines  Antes  tibtr  die  Unsterbl.  der  menschl.  Seele  (1864); 
H.  RlTTER,  Unstcrblichkeit  (1866);  J.  H.  FlTCHE,  Die  Seelenfortdauer  und  die  Welt- 
stellung  des  Menschen  (1867) ;  S.  HoEKSTRA,  Bz.,  De  hoop  der  onstcrflijkheid  (1867). 
Also  the  two  important  articles  of  ULRICI  and  OEHLER,  in  Herzog's  Real.  Enc.,  xxv., 
and  the  literature  there  referred  to.  For  the  entire  ancient  history  of  the  question,  see 
specially  MENZEL,  Die  Vorchristl.  Unsterbl ichkeitslehre,  2  vol.  (1870). 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Can  the  destiny  of  man  be  proved  with  sufficient  accuracy,  even  without  the  light  of 
Christian  faith  in  Revelation  ? — Does  the  question  as  to  immortality  belong  to  the  religious, 
or  more  to  the  philosopliico-anthropological  domain? — Further  elucidation  and  determi- 
nation of  the  belief  in  immortality  among  the  Heathen,  Jews,  and  Christians. — The  views 
of  the  ancient  Church  compared  with  the  utterances  of  ancient  philosophy. — Cannot  man 
be  directly  certain  of  his  immortality  ?— Is  not  the  desire  for  immortality  in  a  great  degree 
pride  and  egoism? — Further  exposition  of  the  chief  grounds,  accompanied  with  a  reply  to 
the  chief  objections. — The  cause  of  the  increasing  doubt  upon  this  point  in  our  time,  and 
the  best  method  of  combating  this  doubt  in  ourselves  and  others. 

14  Matt.  x.  28 ;  Luke  xxiii.  46.         "  Compare  Luke  xx.  35*1.        "  §  ixix. 


CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS, 


SECTION  LXIX.— THE  IMAGE  OF  GOD. 

The  peculiar  excellence  of  man,  as  a  rational  and  moral  being, 
is  expressed  with  the  most  striking  sententiousness  in  the  Biblical 
expression,  used  only  of  him,  that  he  is  made  in  the  image  and 
likeness  of  God.  There  is  as  little  ground  for  supposing  that  this 
image  did  not  originally  belong  to  man's  peculiar  nature  and  essence, 
as  for  asserting  that  it  was  once  for  all  completely  destroyed  and 
annihilated  in  him  through  sin.  In  contrast  with  these  one-sided 
views,  the  properly  understood  Biblical  representation,  maintained 
in  principle  by  the  Reformation,  is  to  be  preferred  to  every  other, 
on  account  of  its  sublimity,  truth,  and  force. 

1.  The  consideration  of  man's  origin,  nature,  and  destination  has  already 
prepared  us  for  that  of  man  as  bearing  the  image  of  God.   "  God  made  m  n 
in  His  image,  after  His  likeness,"1  says  the  sacred  record  with  remarkable 
emphasis.      "The  narrative  is  here  unusually  strong  in  its  joyful  exultation, 
as  if  the  thought  could  not  be  expressed  with  sufficient  vivacity"  (Ewald). 
What  then  is  the  import   of  the  word,  and  what  idea  must  we  form   for 
ourself  of  the  thing  itself?     The  question  is  of  preponderating  import,  not 
merely  for  Anthropology,  but  also  for  Christology  and  Soteriology,  and  in 
the  course  of  centuries   has  been  answered  .in  the  most  diverse  ways.     It 
is  unnecessary  to  give  here  all  the  different  replies,  but  not  superfluous  to 
examine  more  closely  at  least  some  of  the  most  important. 

2.  Where  God  says,  "  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness"'* 
it  is   at  once  plain   that   by  these  words  a  special  privilege   is   implied, 
which  man,   as   such,  shares    with  no  other  creature  on  earth.      Equally 
so  that  the  likeness  here   meant  to  God,  who  is  a  spirit,  cannot  be  found 
exclusively,  or  even  principally,  in  anything  corporeal.     Finally,  that  the 
second  word  merely  serves  to  explain  the  first,  which  is  evident  from  other 
places  in  Holy  Scripture,  where  the  subject  is  spoken  of.     Though  some 
of  the  Greek  Fathers  have  distinguished  between  image  and  likeness  in  this 
way,  that  the  first  denotes  the  nature  of  man  itself,  and  the  second  points 
out  the  gifts  and  powers  bestowed  upon  him  ;    this  distinction  cannot  be 
maintained,  and  has  probably  only  arisen  from  the  /cai,  which  in  the  Greek 
translation  has  been  arbitrarily  inserted  between  the  two  nouns.      Both 
words  plainly  convey  the  same  meaning,  though  some  have  desired  to  dis- 
tinguish them  in   this  way,  that  by  the  first  is  declared  the  more  abstract 
properties,  while  the  second  denotes  the  more  concrete  properties  which  flow 
from  it.     And  according  to  that  striking  image  God  created  man  as  such, 

1  Gen.  i.  26,  27. 


THE  IMAGE  OF  GOD.  375 

i.e.,  not  merely  the  first  man,  but  the  whole  race,  which  began  in  and  with 
this  first  individual,  and  of  which  all  the  members  are  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment3 said  to  be  made  after  the  likeness  of  God. 

3.  There  is  no  foundation  for  the  opinion  of  the  Socinians,  which  was 
afterwards  followed  by  some  Remonstrants  and  Rationalists,  that  the  image 
of  God   consisted   in   that  sovereignty  over  the  whole  creation,  which  is 
immediately  afterwards  announced.4     Then  this  latter  verse  would  only  be 
a  weak    repetition  of  verse   26.      This  is  already  in  itself   improbable, 
especially  since  the  two  ideas  are  not  brought  in  any  other  place  in  the 
Bible  into  direct  connection.      That  man  has  rule  over  all  the  works  of 
God's  hands,  may  be  the  consequence,  or  rather  perhaps  the  revelation,  of 
the  fact   that   he  bears   the   image  of  his  Maker;  that  image  itself  must 
undoubtedly  be  looked  for  in  something  different  and  higher. 

4.  There  is,  however,  just  as  little  reason  to  understand  the  sententious 
expression  with  the   Church    Dogmatics  exclusively  of  the  original  right- 
eousness and  holiness  in  which  the  first  man  was  created,  and  which  he 
lost  through  the  fall.     This  expression   seemingly  finds  sufficient  support 
in  the  Pauline  statements,5  where  knowledge  and  holiness  are  declared  to 
be  elements  of  Go.l's  image,  which  the   new  man  must  exhibit.     The  con- 
clusion seemed  self-evident,  that   the   original  image,  which  Adam  bore, 
was  to  be  seen  in  these  two  features.      This,  however,  is  incorrect,  since 
nowhere  in  the  Gospel  is  the  Salvation  in  the  second  Adam  represented  as 
a  simple  reconstruction  of  that  which  was   lost  through  and  in  the  first 
Still   less   does  it  appear  that  St.  Paul,  in   the  passages  quoted  above, 
intends  to  give  an  explanation  of  the  express  ion  in  Moses.     Evidently  the 
Adam  of  Church  Dogmatics  is  represented    much  more  in  the  light  ot 
the    New  Testament  than    in  that  of  the    Old.      An  innate  knowledge 
and  righteousness    such    as    there    assumed,  are  at  once   in   themselves 
scarcely  conceivable,  and  render,    in  proportion  as  they  are  more  deve- 
loped, the  origin  of  sin  ever  less    intelligible.     But  besides,  Holy  Scrip- 
ture  nowhere   teaches    that   the   first   man  alone  was   made  after  God's 
image,  and  that  this  image  was  at  once  lost  by  him  and  his  descendants ; 
indeed,  it  rather  teaches  the  contrary.6     The  ideal  of  renewal  is  in  noway 
offered  to  us  in  the  first  Adam,  while  it   is  definitely  seen  in  the  Second,7 
who  Himself  exhibits  in  undimmed    splendour  the  image  of  the  Father, 
into  which  we  are  to  be  transformed.8      When  we  take  all  this  into  considera- 
tion, it  cannot  be  denied  that  upon  this  point  the  Church  Confession  needs 
some  revision,  in  order  to  be  the  exact  expression  of  the  contents  of  the 
sacred  revelation.     The  distinction,  however,  made  by  some  theologians 
between  the  image  of  God  in  the  narrower  and  wider  sense  of  the  words 
seems  rather  arbitrary  and  the  result  of  misunderstanding. 

5.  The  difficulty,  which  rises  here  when  the  image  of  God  is  without 
sufficient  ground  brought  in  too  exclusive  connection  with  the  first  man, 
and  his  condition  before  the  fall,  will  disappear  when  we  aim  at  a  more 
general  meaning  for  this  expression,  and  discover  (with  Calvin)  the  excel- 

James  iii.  9.  *  See  Gen.  v.  I,  3a;  ix.  6;  James  iii.  9  ;  I  Cor.  xi.  7. 

4  Gen.  i.  28.  7  Comp.  I  Cor.  xv.  49;  2  Cor.  iii.  18. 

*Eph.  iv.  23,  24;  Col.  iii.  9,  IO.      *  Comp.  Rom.  viii.  29;  Col.  i.  15. 


376  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

lency  of  human  nature  in  its  entirety  to  be  thus  denoted.  "  Imago  Dei 
est  Integra  naturae  humanae  praestantia"  (Calv.  Inst.  i.  15,  4).  Man  bears 
the  likeness  of  God,  because  he,  as  distinguished  from  all  other  dwellers 
on  the  earth,  is  a  rational  and  moral  personality,  directly  allied  to  God,  and 
formed  for  fellowship  with  Him.9  His  likeness  to  God  consists  thus  in 
the  possession  of  self-consciousness  and  freedom,  and  fixes  itself  in  the 
spiritual  domain,  while  it  reflects  itself  again  in  the  material  world,  as  well  in 
his  corporeity  as  in  the  sovereignty  (under  God)  granted  to  him  over  all 
creation.  This  was  so  in  all  its  force  in  the  first  man,  especially  before  his 
fall,  but  it  continues  to  be  so  with  all  men ;  since  sin,  though  it  has  changed 
our  present  condition,  has  not  altered  our  original  nature.  This  truth  lies 
at  the  foundation  of  the  churchly,  as  well  as  of  the  Socinian  conception, 
though  neither,  without  some  further  exposition,  can  avail  as  the  pure 
expression  of  the  full  truth.  We  must  also  admit  that  the  fundamental 
character  of  the  image  of  God  is  in  our  conception  entirely  moral.  Hence 
the  spiritual  renewal  after  that  image  must  necessarily  be  revealed  in  know- 
ledge and  holiness  ;  but  that  which  from  the  nature  of  the  case  in  the  first 
man  could  only  be  present  in  principle,10  is  developed  in  a  much  higher 
degree  by  the  redeemed  through  his  fellowship  with  Christ. 

6.  If  this  explication  be  the  true  one,  we  have  no  ground  for  complaining 
with  some  of  the  fathers  (Gregory  Nazianzen,  Theodoret,  etc.),  that  we 
cannot  now  define  in  what  the  image  of  God  originally  consisted ;  still  less 
have  we  reason,  with  the  Audiani,  as  Irenseus  in  earlier  times,  to  conceive 
of  something  purely  corporeal,  or,  with  the  Encratites  and  Severiani,  to 
limit  this  privilege  only  to  man,  to  the  exclusion  of  woman.  Least  of  all, 
however,  should  we,  with  the  Romish  Church,  assume  that  the  image  of 
God  in  the  first  man  was  something  merely  additional  (accedens\  bestowed 
upon  him  in  consequence  of  a  supernatural  communication ;  but  not 
belonging  to  the  essence  of  his  nature.  "  Originalis  justitise  donum  admi- 
rabile  addidit,  ac  deinde  cseteris  animantibus  prseesse  voluit  "  ( Catech. 
Rom.  \.  2,  19).  Man  created  "in  puris  naturalibus,"  must  then  by  this 
extraordinary  gift  have  primordially  known  and  glorified  his  Maker ;  but 
he  has  lost  it  through  sin,  and  thus  falls  short  of  God's  glory.  The  Reformers 
most  justly  assert,  in  opposition  to  this  mechanical  view,  that  "justitia 
originalis  "  was  an  original  and  actual  element  of  our  nature,  as  it  came 
fjrth  from  the  hand  of  the  Creator.  This  was  Luther's  Commentary  on 
Gen.  iii.,  "  Justitiam  originalem  non  fuisse  quoddam  donum,  quod  ad  extra 
accederet,  sed  fuisse  vere  naturalem,  ita  ut  natura  Adae  esset  diligere 
Deum,  credere  Deo,  cognoscere  Deum."  To  a  superficial  observer  the 
whole  of  this  question  may  seem  of  subordinate  importance  ;  but  when 
more  closely  examined,  it  is  of  preponderating  theological  and  anthropolo- 
gical value.  For  it  is,  in  other  words  the  question  as  to  the  existence 
and  right  of  a  natural  knowledge  of  God  j11  or  even  if  this  be  put  aside,  it  is 
at  once  apparent  that,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Romish  Church,  the  fall 
only  becomes  more  enigmatical,  and  in  no  case  can  be  regarded  as  a 
properly  so-called  declension  of  human  nature  itself.  Besides,  the  whole 
conception  of  such  a  "  donum  superadditum  "  is  foreign  to  Holy  Scrip- 

'  Compare  Luke  iii.  38  ;  Acts  xvii.  28.        lo  Section  Ixx.        "  Compare  §  iii.  9. 


THE  IMAGE  OF  GOD. 


377 


tiire,  and  originates  in  the  unbiblical  conception  that  the  first  man  alone 
bore  the  image  of  God,  and — lost  it  through  sin. 

7.  The  image  of  God  is  "  man's  title  of  royalty  "  "  des  Menschen  konig's 
diploma."     The  enigma  of  man's  origin,  nature,  and  destiny,12  is   only 
then   in  a  certain   degree   explicable,   when  this   statement    is  accepted 
without  any  limitation,  on  scriptural  grounds.     In  the  first   man  mankind 
is   created   after  the   image   of  God ;  and   while   we   must    regard    this 
image  as  natural   and   capable  of  propagation,  naturalis  et  propagabilis, 
(cf.  Gen.  v.  3,)  we  must  deny  that  it  is,  as  something  accidental,  even 
in    the   least   degree    capable   of  being   lost,    accidentalis   et    amissibilis. 
It  was  not  merely  an  ideal,  after  which  man  was  to  strive,  but  actually  a 
treasure  which  he  was  to  keep,  and  hand  o«er  to  posterity  unimpaired. 
"The  image  of  God  in  man  cannot  be  destroyed.     Even  in  hell  it  can 
burn,  but  cannot  be  consumed  :  it  may  be  tormented,  but  cannot  be  ex- 
tirpated"   (Bernard  of  Clairvaux).      Certainly,    for  it  forms  an  original 
element  of  our  human  nature ;  and  if  we  were  wholly  despoiled  of  it,  we 
should  then  be  as  little  m^n,  as  the  bird  when  deprived  of  the  means  of 
flying  can  bear  the  name  of  bird.     It  is  therefore  perfectly  accurate,  when 
we  assert  that  the  splendour  of  God's  image  is  dimmed  and  injured  by 
sin,  but  inaccurate,  when  we  deny  that  the  sinner  too  is  formed  after  the 
image  of  God.     Very  justly  does  Calvin  say  (i.  15,  4)  "  Etsi  demus  non 
prorsus  exinanitam  ac  deletam  in  eo  fuisse  Dei  imaginem,  sic  tamen  cor- 
rupta  fuit,  ut  quidquid  superest,  horrenda  est  deformitas."     In  a  like  spirit 
does  the  Netherlands  Confession  speak  of  "  slender  vestiges "   (petites 
traces)  which  are  sufficient  to  take  away  from  man  all  innocence. 

8.  The  sacred  representation  of  man's  original  relationship  to  God  excels 
in  sublimit  .-,  truth,  and  force.     Contrast  it  once  again  with  that  given  by 
Naturalism,  and  we  shall  see  on  what  side  man  is  most  exalted  and  most 
deeply  abased.     Ancient  philosophers  have  already  felt  and  in  some  degree 
expressed  this  truth  ;13  but  Revelation  has  been  the  first  to  give  to  that 
feeling  its  just  expression  and  its  highest  meaning.     It  teaches  us  to  think 
humbly  of  ourselves,  but  loftily  of  mankind,  and  tunes  the  heart  to  the 
note  which  is  so  grandly  touched  in  the  eighth  Psalm. 

Comp.  S.  K.  THODEN  VAN  VELZEN,  De  hominis  cum  Deo  similitudim,  i.,  ii.  (1835) ;  J. 
MULI.ER,  Die  Christl,  Lehrev.  d.  Suiide,  2nd  ed.  (1844),  ii.,  pp.  472 — 480;  SCHOKBER- 
LEIN'S  Article  in  Herzog,  R.  £.,  iii.;  PH.  F.  KEERL,  Der  Alensch  das  Ebenbild  Gottes, 
i.,  ii.  (1861,  1866);  J.  H.  GUNNING,  Jr.,  Blikken,  iii.,  p.  i,  sqq.;  ENGELHARDT,  Die 
Gottesbildlichkeit  des  Menschen,  in  the  Jahrb.fiir  deutsche  TheoL  (1870),  i. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

What  is  the  reason  that  such  different  views  concerning  the  image  of  God  in  man  have 
at  all  times  prevailed  ? — Difficulty  and  importance  of  the  question.  —Further  elucidation 
of  the  passages  of  Scripture  which  touch  upon  it. — Criticism  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Church. 
— History  of  the  origin  of  the  Roman  view,  and  limitation  of  its  worth. — Is  there  sufficient 
ground  for  a  dogmatic  distinction  between  the  image  of  God  in  the  natural  sense,  which 
remained,  and  in  the  moral  sense,  which  was  lost  ? — The  image  of  God  in  man,  and  the 
Logos.  ^ 

12    Sections  Ixvi. — Ixviii. 

11  Compare  the  words  of  Aratus,  Acts  xvii.  28,  and  the  fleoefceXoi,  eecxiS^,  etc.,  in* 
Homer. 


378  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

SECTION   LXX. — THE  ORIGINAL  CONDITION. 

Of  man,  formed  after  the  image  of  God,  nought  else  could  be 
expected  but  that  he,  so  long  as  he  displayed  that  image  in  untar- 
nished splendour,  should  know  God,  and  obey  Him,  and  in  His  com- 
munion enjoy  the  purest  happiness,  without  being  subject  to  death. 
The  little  information  which  Holy  Scripture  gives  us  concerning  the 
first  man,  fully  confirms  this  expectation,  and  presents  him  to  us  in 
a  condition  which  contained  both  the  'possibility  of  a  normal,  as 
well  as  the  necessity  for  a  continued,  development.  Notwithstanding 
all  its  mysteriousness,  this  Biblical  representation  of  a  so-called 
state  of  uprightness  has  a  firm  ground  and  a  high  import ;  which 
makes  it  not  only  desirable,  but  also  possible,  to  sustain  it  con- 
tinually against  opposition,  from  whatever  side  it  may  arise. 

1.  From   man   in  general  we   come  now  to  the   first  man,   and   thus 
to    the  question,   as   natural  as  it  is  important,   What   conclusion   must 
we    form   as   to    his    original    condition  ?      Even  if    we    had    here    no 
further   light  than  that  of  the  knowledge  that  the  personal   living   God 
formed  man  after  His  own  image,  the  answer  could,  at  least  in  general, 
not  be  doubtful.     From  such  a  God,  and  such  a  man,  it  would  be  impos- 
sible  to  look  for  aught  else,  but  that  the  latter  would  have  begun  his 
existence,  not  in  a  condition  of  complete   helplessness,  but  of  sufficient 
maturity,  not  of  sin,  but  of  sinlessness,  not  of  misery,  but  of  happiness,  such 
as  was  suited  to  his  capacity.     It  must  h?ve  been  a  state  of  original  sin- 
lessness and  purity;  for  God,  who  by  man's  conscience  iorbids  him  to 
commit  sin,  could  not  by  any  possibility  begin  by  Himself  originating  evil.1 

2.  To  such  a  presentment  as  this,  in  itself  quite  acceptable,  the  Bible 
leads  us,  rendering  at  the  same  time  sufficiently  clear  what  it  declares  con- 
cerning the  so-called  state  of  uprightness.   Jt  would  be  an  error  if,  misled  by 
the  sound  of  the  words,  we  referred  here  to  what  is  said  in  Eccles.  vii.  29.  But 
we  may  safely  make  use  of  everything  which  Scripture  teaches  us  con- 
cerning the  spotless  holiness  of  God,  when  combined  with  the  certain  testi- 
mony that  everything  which  He  had  created,  and  specially  man,  was  in  His 
eyes  "  very  good."     As  to  the  trustworthiness  of  the  Mosaic  narrative  in 
this  respect,  we  may  refer  to  what  has  been  already  said  in  §  Iviii.     Here 
we  only  observe  that  nothing   can  be  called  for  God  (objectively)  "very 
good,"  save  that  which  is  in    harmony  with  itself,   and  with  the  destiny 
which  God  has  willed  for  it.      Wherein  this  "very  good"   as  regards  the 
first  man  consisted,  may  be  difficult  to  determine,  on  account  of  the  brevity 
and  obscurity  of  the  sacred  narratives  ;  on  the  other  hand,  these  awaken  a 
confidence  which  we  should   scarcely  be  willing  to  grant  to  more  lengthy 
and  definite  records  of  such  early  date. 


1  Heb.  i.  13 ;  James  i.  13. 


THE  ORIGINAL  CONDITION. 


379 


3.  Thus  much  is  at  once  evident ;  the  first  man  must  have  possessed 
knowledge  of  God,  in  consequence  of  his  being  allied  to  God,  and  of  God's 
revealing  Himself  in  him  and  to   him.     This   knowledge  may  have  been 
incomplete,  of  course ;  it  was  without  doubt  pure,  since  it  was  derived  from 
the  fountain-head  itself,  and  the  eye  of  the  spirit  was  not  yet  dimmed  by 
sin.     He  not  only  hears  the  voice  of  his  Creator,  but  understands  it  also, 
and  in  consequence  he  knows  his   duty.2     So  there  is  thus  no  ground  for 
supposing  in  him  a  condition  of  childish  simplicity,    "like  sheep   in   a 
meadow,"  as  Strauss  says  ;  and  it  certainly  sounds  strange  when  men  will 
deduce  from  the  Mosaic  narrative,  which  is  contradicted  by  them  on  all 
other  points,  that  these  first  men  were  like  wild  beasts,  in  an  animal  con- 
dition, and  without  any  feeling  of  shame.3     There  is,  however,  a  holy  inno- 
cence and  simplicity,  which  holds  a  much  higher  place  than  the  development 
which  is  obtained  by  an  experimental  knowledge  of  the  distinction  between 
good  and  evil,  and  this  "  sancta  simplicitas  "  is  that  of  which  we  must 
now  speak. 

4.  We  may  the  more  safely  attribute  to  the  first  man  such  knowledge  of 
God,  because  lie  was  united  to  Him  by  the  bond  of  the  purest  lore.     If 
this  love  is  the  essential  character  of  God,  it  must  also  be  the  proper  vital 
force,  and  the  guiding  principle  in  him  who  bears  His  image.     "  Quo  nisi 
Deo  plenus  est,  qui  plenus  est  dilectione  ?  "  (Augustine).    T/uit  love  was  the 
principle  of  the  purest  knowledge,  for  indeed  we  understand  nothing  better 
than  that  which  we  love  :  "  ubi  caritas  est,  claritas  est "  (Hugo  de  S.  Victor). 
But  at  the  same  time  it  was  the  regulating  power  of  the  whole  inner  and 
outer  life  ;  for  again  it  is  here  that  we  live  as  we  love.     Where  love  reigns,  is 
the  "  ordo  amoris,"  there  is  the  harmony  of  the  man  with  himself,  and  with 
Him  whom  he  loves.     Of  course,  in  the  case  to  which  we  refer,  there  can 
be  no  question  of  a  holiness,  which  is  only  to  be  obtained  as  the  result  of 
an  inner  development ;  but  if  no  other  perfection  than  this  were  conceivable, 
it  could  not  be  ascribed  even  to  God  Himself.     Enough  !  the  absolute 
moral  perfection  of  the  Creator  must  have  been  relatively  in  the  creature, 
and  as  it  attains  its  culmination  in  love,  man  must  also  through  that  love 
have  been  able  to  know  God's  will,  and  to  fulfil  it  faithfully.     From  its 
nature  it  was  at  the  same  time  the  capacity  to  discriminate,  as  it  were  in- 
stinctively, and  successively  to  resist,  all  that  was  ungodly,  or  opposed  to 
God.     What  a  love  to  God  would  that   be,   which,  while  in  all  its  first 
power,  did  not  place  man  in  the  position  of  a  "  posse  non  peccare  " ! 

5.  it  is  self-evident  that  such  a  condition,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
could  not  be  aught    else    but   the    happiest   possible.     It    does    not   fall 
within  the  sphere  of  Dogmatics    to   discuss    the    many  questions  which 
may  be  put  concerning  Paradise.     The  doubt,  which  has  now  and  then 
been  expressed,  e.g.,  by  John  Scotus   Erigena,  etc.,  as  to  such  an  abode  of 
happiness  ever  having  existed,  is  quite  arbitrary,  and  only  partially  expli- 
cable from  the  repugnance  which  was  excited  by  the  too  plastic  representa- 
tion of  the  happiness  of  Paradise  by  Augustine  and  other  fathers.     The 
history  of  civilisation,  too,  offers  proofs  that  the  cradle  of  our  race  was  in  the 
East,  and  more  definitely  in  Central  Asia,  and  we  cannot  possibly  concer.e 

Gen.  iii.  3.  Reville. 


380  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

of  it,  but  as  placed  by  the  highest  Love  in  a  most  blessed  spot.  The  three 
sources  of  our  misery — recollection,  restlessness,  fear,  had  no  need  to  flow 
there  for  the  still  sinless  man  ;  while  all  the  external  and  internal  con- 
ditions of  happiness  existed  there  undoubtedly  in  the  highest  degree. 

6.  That  happiness  was  enjoyed  by  the  first  man,  without  as  yet  being 
subject  to  death.     The  threat  in  Genesis  ii.  17,  that  he  should  surely  die  if 
he  broke  the  law — for  this  is  the  original  sense — would  be  quite  devoid  of 
meaning  if  death  had  in  any  case  been  the  absolutely  inevitable  destiny  of 
man.     As  to  his  body,  he  was  undoubtedly  taken  out  of  the  dust  of  the 
earth,4  and  in  that  fact  was  contained  the  possibility  of  death,  but  the 
absolute  necessity  thereof  was  in  no  way  declared.     On  the  contrary,  our 
deepest  self-feeling  declares  that  death  in  the  true  and  the  highest  sense  of 
the  word  must  be  termed  something  contrary  to  nature ;  "  rien  n'est  plus 
absurde  que  la  mort"  (Renan).     If  natural  science  teaches  us  that  in  the 
animal  world  death  and  destruction  had  already  ruled,  long  before  the  first 
man  trod  the  earth ;  as  a  separate  link  in  the  chain  of  beings,  he  was  suffi- 
ciently raised  above  them  for  the  fundamental  law  of  their  kingdom  not 
necessarily  and  without  limitation  to  apply  to  him.     In  the  fulness  of  love 
to  God  there  was  also  present  the  possibility  (the  poieiitia)  of  being  able 
to  continue  alive,  since  love  and  life  are  one.     Whether  this  possibility 
would  have  been  actually  (actu)  realised  (in  other  words,  whether  the  posse 
non  mori  would  rise  to  a  non  posse  mori),  this  depended  on  his  obedience 
to  the  test  command.     If  in  Gen.  iii.  22,  we  see  the  tree  of  life  placed 
over  against  the  tree  of  temptation,  the  supposition  seems  legitimate  that  the 
latter  must  have  been  either  a  symbol  of,  or  a  means  towards,  the  prolonga- 
tion of  life  by  a  continuance  in  obedience,  which  was  on  this  account 
denied  immediately  after  the  first  trangression.     We  need  not  therefore 
assume  that  the  sinless  man  would  have  continued  to  live  always  upon 
earth  in  the  body :  he  might  even  without  death  have  been  brought  over 
into  a  higher  sphere  of  life.5     Enough,  however,  if  by  continuing  steadfast 
in  love  he  could  have  escaped  that  death,  which  is  the  penalty  of  sin, 
with  its  sharp  string  and  its  terrible  consequences.     In  love  to  God,  and 
in  fellowship  with  Him,  the  possibility  of  an  endless  life  had  a  psychological 
and  ethical  ground. 

7.  Much,  too,  was  done  by  God  for  augmenting  the  happiness  of  this  state. 
Nothing  less  was  already  a  priori  to  be  expected  than  that  the  Creator 
should  also  be  the  Educator  of  the  most  highly  privileged  race,  and  that 
this  education  must  begin  even  in  Paradise.      The  form  which  it  took 
may  remain  quite   undefined ;    a   too   plastic  and    fantastic   description 
of  it  only  elicits  needless  contradiction.     The  fact  can  by  no  means  be 
disputed,  because  the  first  man,  without  such  a  higher  training  and  guid- 
ance, could  not  possibly  have  attained  to  the  destiny  which  God  designed 
for  him.     We  may  even  assume  that  in  the  infancy  of  creation,  when  sin 
had  not  yet  made  any  separation,  the  communion  between  heaven  and 
earth  was  much  closer   than   it   has    since   been.     Thus   we   can  by  no 
means   reject  what   the   Mosaic  record  states  concerning   God's  special 


*  XOIKOS,  I  Cor.  xv.  47 ;  compare  Gen.  ii.  7. 
4  Compare  Gen.  v.  24 ;  2  Kings  ii.  1 1 ;  2  Cor. 


v.  4. 


THE  ORIGINAL  CONDITION*.  381 

care  for  the  first  pair,  even  when  we  can  only  understand  it  partially. 
His  placing  of  them  in  Paradise  already  testifies  to  this  care.  Before 
the  still  undimmed  glance  the  creation  must,  as  it  were,  have  been 
transparent,  and  have  revealed  God  in  a  much  greater  degree  than  it 
now  conceals  Him  from  our  eyes.  Along  with  the  dressing  of  the  garden,6 
the  keeping  of  it  against  a  still  unknown,  but  even  then  present  and  threat- 
ening hostile  power  must  have  elevated  the  life  of  the  spirit.  Reflection 
was  strengthened  even  by  the  giving  names  to  the  creatures,  while  the 
power  of  speech  was  exercised  and  the  feeling  of  solitude  aroused,  soon 
after  satisfied  in  so  surprising  a  way.  Even  God  Himself  communicates 
with  and  speaks  to  man.7  Whatever  conception  we  may  form  of  this,  God 
Himself  became  the  Teacher  of  men  (Delitzsch).  It  is  possible  that  the  ordi- 
nance of  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath8  dates  from  the  first  pair ;  Exod. 
xx.  8,  when  compared  with  Exod.  xvi.  23 — 25,  seems  at  any  rate  to  point 
to  a  pre-Mosaic  institution.  Certainly  the  trial-command9  was  the  most  ex- 
cellent way  of  leading  man  one  step  forward  on  the  road  of  his  destination. 

8.  The  prohibiting  of  man's  eating  from  one  tree,  or  one  kind  of  tree,  is 
entirely  misunderstood,  when  it  is  supposed  that  this  eating  could  have  been 
either  morally  wrong  in  itself,  or  destructive  to  health  or  life.   The  former  is 
inconceivable,  and  in  the  latter  case  the  physical  and  moral  injury  (Schleier- 
macher)  could  have  been  prevented  by  a  seasonably  applied  medicine. 
It  must  be  simply  regarded  as  a  trial-command,  that  is,  as  a  demand  in  a 
moral  sense  and  in  itself  indifferent,  but  one  from  which  man's  feeling  towards 
God  and  goodness  would  show  itself.     This  trial  was  necessary,  for  what  is 
virtue  without  conflict?   It  might  have  been  temporary,  and  have  been 
afterwards  succeeded  by  other  trials,  of  a  heavier  or  lighter  character.     It 
was  not  too  heavy ;  for  the  command  was  plain,  the  privation  unimportant, 
the  threat  definite ;  and  in  addition  to  all  this,  love  must  have  been  strong 
enough  to  preserve  man  from  the  power  of  temptation.     Only  where  such 
temptation  was  withstood,  could  virtue  and  holiness   arise.     Arbor  bona, 
sed  obedientia    melior.     There   is  not,   however,  the  slightest  ground   for 
conceiving  here  of  a  properly  so-called  covenant  made  by  God  with  all  man- 
kind in  Adam,  in  which  eternal  life,  as  the  reward  of  the  work  of  obedience, 
was  the  promise,  and  the  tree  of  life  was  the  sign  and  seal  (Coccejus).     The 
exegetical  grounds  for  this  view  in  Hosea  vi.  7  are  absolutely  insufficient, 
and  its  dogmatic  value  has  not  the  slightest  importance.    Scripture  does  not 
teach  that  God  has  made  a  contract  with  man,  but  only  that  He  designs  to 
lead  him,  plainly  by  a  moral  road,  to  greater  happiness. 

9.  In  consequence  of  these  different  statements,  we  see  in  the  first  man 
a  being,  to  whom  continuous  development  was  possible,  and  even  absolutely 
necessary.     He  was  in  principle  perfect,  but  he  was  as  yet  standing  at  the 
starting-point  of  his  career,  and  that  which  was  to  be  acquired  by  conflict 
could  not  originally  exist  for  him  in  all  its  completeness.     We  must  here 
think  of  a  condition  of  natural  and  moral  health,  but  one  which  had  not  yet 
gone  through  a  single  shock.     Potentially  Adam  was  everything  which  he 
must  primarily  have  been,  but  actually  he  had  still  to  become  all  of  which 
the  germs  had  been  implanted  in  him.     To  this  end  the  trial-command  was 

•  Gen.  ii.  15.  '  Gen.  iii.  8.  8  Gen.  ii.  3.  *  Gen.  ii.  17. 


382  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

given,  by  which  God  designed  perhaps  bot'i  to  strengthen  and  to  arm  him 
against  the  might  and  craft  of  darkness.  If  there  is  here  something  of  mys- 
tery, thus  much  is  at  least  plain,  that  we  cannot  conceive  of  virtue  without 
freedom,  nor  of  freedom  withoat  the  possibility  of,  and  the  opportunity  for, 
sinning.  There  can  be  no  talk  of  any  moral  development,  so  long  as  we 
have  not  learned  to  know  the  good  as  well  as  the  evil  closely  ;  no  continuous 
enjoyment  of  the  tree  of  life,  without  a  continuous  avoidance  of  the  tree  of 
temptation.  Man  would  then,  when  he  had  first  overcome  temptation,  be 
able  to  maintain  himself  upon  the  high  position  which  was  assigned  to  him 
as  the  head  of  the  earthly  creation. 

10.  That  continuous  development  might,  however,  have   been  normal, 
without  the  necessity  of  the  first  man  falling  into  sin.     We  have  certainly 
not  to  conceive  of  a  purely  negative  innocence,  in  which  the  lust  already 
present  was  as  yet  only  slumbering,  at  a  certain  point  of  development  to 
lead  inevitably  to  evil.   ,  This  view  makes  God  indirectly  the  cause  of  sin, 
and  does  not  find  the  very  slightest  shadow  of  proof  in  the  sacred  record. 
The  will  could  without  doubt  incline  to  one  side,  as  well  as  to  the  other,  but 
it  did  not  therefore  any  the  more  stand  in  the  presence  of  God  in  a  merely 
neutral  relation.     Not  only  was  an  excellent  disposition  given,  but  a  be- 
ginning full  of  much  promise  was  made ;  there  was  not  merely  innocence 
(innocent ia\  but  a  moral  rectitude  (integritas),  which  was  to  become  holiness. 
Thus  was  Adam  "  able  with  his  will  to  agree  in  everything  with  the  will  of 
God."10     It  is  incorrect  to  assert  that  the  command  in  itself  must  have  been 
fatal  to  this  normal  development,  since  it  excited  the  very  desire  toward 
that  which  was  forbidden.     With  us,  in  whom  the  evil  desire  is  already 
slumbering,  this  may  often  be  the  case,  and  the  experience  of  St.  Paul  will 
often  repeat  itself;11  it  is  different  in  the  still  uncorrupted  nature.     A  pro- 
hibition indeed  presupposes  that  the  highest  moral  perfection  has  not  yet 
been  attained,  but  it  need  not  become  a  trap  to  the  foot,  which  wishes  to 
tread  the  right  path  ;  if  this  were  so,  every  lawgiver  would  also  be  an  author 
of  sin.     Love  to  God,  originally  proper  to  man  as   a  moral  being,  as  we 
have  already  said,  was  the  principle  of  life,  in  which  was  contained  the 
possibility  of  continuance  in  that  which  was  good  (the  posse  non  peccare). 
"The  likeness  to  God  is  not  imprinted  as  a  cultivated  faculty,  nor  imme- 
diately as  developed  Holiness,  Righteousness,  and  \Visdom,  just  as  this,  too, 
is  not  effected  in  the  New  Birth ;  but  man  in  the  possession  of  a  Divine 
capacity  for  life,  furnished  with  God's  royal  law  of  Love,  and  provided 
with  the  light  of  the  Spirit,  and  the  desire  to  recognise  truth,  possesses  the 
living  capacity  for,  and  destination  to,  holiness  and  righteousness  as  the 
fruit  of  a  clear  recognition  of  truth,  and  of  wisdom"  (Beck). 

11.  But  with  regard  to  the  question,  how  this  normal  development  would 
"have  proceeded,  only  conjectures  are  possible.    If  we  reflect,  however,  how 
the  image  of  God,  which  really  was  exhibited  in  man,  is  originally  present  in 
the  Logos,12  then  are  we  naturally  led  to  the  thought  that  in  the  Son  of  God 
was  presented  the  highest  ideal  of  the  development  of  the  first  Adam,  and 
that  it  would  have  been  attained  by  the  contemplation — in  some  way  or 
other — of  God's  highest  revelation  in  Him.     The  question  on  which  we 

10  Neth.  Conf.,  Art.  xiv.  "  Rom.  vii.  9—11.  12  Col.  i.  15. 


THE  ORIGINAL  CONDITION.  383 

have  already  touched  in  §  Iv.  6,  whether  the  Logos  would  have  become 
flesh,  if  sin  had  not  already  been  in  the  world,  would  thus,  from  this  point 
of  view,  require  an  affirmative  answer.  Here,  however,  there  is  the  less  need 
to  discuss  it,  since  this  normal  development,  which  we  might  in  this  way 
conceive  to  be  possible,  has,  alas  !  never  been  at  all  realised. 

12.  Meanwhile,  though  much  that  is  mysterious  may  still  remain,  the 
doctrine  of  an  original  sinless  normal  condition  of  the  first  man  remains 
much  more  acceptable  than  any  which  has  been  advanced  against  it,  and 
on  this  account  deserves  to  be  still  maintained  against  Theosophic  exag- 
geration on  the  one  hand,  and  Naturalistic  negation  and  weakness  on  the 
other.     We  find  traces  of  the  first  even  in  Augustine,  when  he  asserts  that 
Adam's  reason  before  the  fall  was,  as  compared  to  ours,  as  the  bird  is  to 
the  tortoise  ;  that,  with  a  continued  state  of  rectitude,  the  propagation  of 
the  race  would  have  taken  place  without  the  least  concupiscence ;  and  that 
the  newly-born  child  would  very  speedily,  through  the  special  working  of 
Omnipotence,  have  attained  a  perfect  state  :  in  Albertus  Magnus,  when  he 
declares  that  the  first  man  would  have  felt  no  pain,  though  he  had  been 
stoned  with  heavy  stones :  in  J.  Scotus  Erigena,  when  he  states,  that  in  the 
human  creature,  as  yet  without  sin,  the  male  and  female  element  originally 
existed  together  undistinguished  ;  and  that  if  he  had  continued  in  this  state, 
his  descendants  would  have  proceeded  from  him  as  the  angels  from  their 
Creator :  and  in  J.  Bohme,  when  he  conjectures  that  the  intestinal  canal, 
and  everything  connected  with  it,  was  the  consequence  of  the  fall;  while  we 
need  not  speak  of  the  views  of  later  times,  and  even  of  the  present  day.13 
Whatever  value  these  fictions  may  possess  as  plays  of  imagination,  and 
instances  of  an  unlimited  belief  in  that  which  some  consider  the  doctrine  of 
the  Bible,  or  the  natural  consequences  of  such  doctrine,  a  rational  science 
must  with  all  seriousness  protest  against  eccentricities  of  this  kind,  partly, 
because  they  meet  with  no  support  in  the  words  of  Scripture,   but  are 
evip  sometimes  loudly  contradicted  in  it ;  partly,  because  they  make  the 
first  man  a  man  only  in  appearance,  and  render  the  fall  from  such  a  height 
merely  more  inconceivable  ;  partly,  in  the  last  place,  because  such  an  over- 
excited fancy  only  too  quickly  leads  the  way  to  an  increased  contradiction 
from  the  side  of  a  more  sober  philosophy. 

13.  It  can  at  any  rate  hardly  be  disputed  that  the  Naturalistic  denial  and 
undermining  of  the  Scriptural  doctrine  has  but  too  frequently  found  in  these 
very  variegated  representations  both  a  pretext  and  a  support.     This  was 
specially  the  case,  in  opposition  to  the  bold  conjectures  of  Augustine,  with 
Pelagius  in  the  fifth  century,  and  in  contrast  to  the  highly  wrought  repre- 
sentation of  a  "justitia  concreata"  by  the  Reformers,  with  the  Socinians  in 
the  sixteenth  century,  taken  up  immediately  by  some  of  the  Remonstrants, 
and  afterwards  by  the  Deists  and  Rationalists.    With  unimportant  variation 
their  ideas  always  came  back  to  this,  that  the  first  man,  created  in  a  state 
of  childish  innocence,  was  naturally  subject  to  death,  and  much  more  in 
capacity  than  in  reality  the  bearer  of  the  image  of  the  Creator.    Schleier- 
macher  considered  it  inexpedient  to  come   to  any  dogmatical  definition 
as  to  the  original  condition  of  mankind,  and  the  older  Supranaturalisra 

"  Compare  the  references  in  Strauss,  Chr.  Glaubensl.,  i.  691. 


384  CHRISTIAN   DOGMATICS. 

always  contented  itself  with  an  undefined  recognition  of  man's  excellent 
capacity.  We  have  already  seen  (§  Ixvi.)  what  the  modern  Naturalism 
declares  or  rather  denies,  concerning  the  first  men,  and  no  one  can  be 
entirely  unacquainted  with  the  superciliousness  with  which  the  spirit  of 
unbelief,  even  in  its  less  trained  disciples  (tirones),  looks  down  upon  the 
view  of  the  orthodox. 

14.  This  latter  view,  however,  if  it  be  suitably  retained  within  Biblical 
limits,  we  continue  not  only  to  accept  as  our  own,  but  also  to  support  as 
the  most  rational  and  intrinsically  acceptable.     The  idea  of  an  earlier  and 
better  condition  is  so  far  from  being  unreasonable,  that,  on  the  contrary,  we 
meet  with  it  in  varied  forms  among  the  most  diverse  nations  of  antiquity. 
This  has  been  perforce  confessed  even  by  the  unbeliever,  "  La  chute  de 
1'homme  dege'nere  est  le  fondement  de  la  theologie  de  presque  toutes  les 
anciennes  nations"  (Voltaire).    The  antiquity,  the  relative  universality,  and 
the  similarity  of  these  representations  cannot,  it  seems,  be  explained  in  a 
better  mode  than  as  the  fruit  of  an  original  tradition,  whose  purest  form  is 
found  in  Holy  Scripture.     The  statement  that  we  meet  here  with  nothing 
but  an  ingenious  allegory  and  a  philosophic  myth,  has  not  yet  been  duly 
proved.     The  Mosaic  narratives  bear  separately  the  stamp  of  truth,  agree 
in  the  main,  and  are  supported  by  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament.14 
Philosophic   objections   have   any  real    value   only   when,   forsaking   the 
Christian  Theistic  standpoint,  we  make  the  history  of  mankind  begin  not 
from  above,  but  from  below;    on  the  other  hand,   even  nobler  heathen, 
such  as  Plato,  have   believed   in  an  original   purity  of  the   soul   before 
its  present  restricted  state,  and  have  thus  in  principle  granted  a  repre- 
sentation similar  to  the  Mosaic.     If  it  has  its  peculiar  difficulty,  the  Natu- 
ralistic assertion  that  all  organic  beings  ultimately  proceed  from  inorganic 
matter,  passes  by  mountains  of  difficulties,  and  deserves,  in  consequence 
of  the  audacity  of  not  a  few  of  its  teachers,  to  be  rejected  with  the  words 
of  Scripture  in  Job  xxxviii.   4.     If  we  once  grant  a  place  to  a  special 
miracle  of  creation  in  the  formation  of  man,  there  is  nothing  to  prevent 
us  from  accepting  satisfactory  evidence  that  his  original  condition  was  in 
many  respects  different  from  that  which  is  ROW  most  usual  and  natural. 
Only  let  us  avoid  the  temptation  to  depict  this  condition  too  vividly, 
instead  of  reflecting  on  those  words  of  wisdom,  "  Oh  that  we  might  learn  to 
stop  at  the  right  place  !"  (Stier.)    As  it  is  with  the  doctrine  of  Eschatology, 
so  it  is  with  that  of  the  creation,  even  of  man ;  both  require  great  care, 
since  they  come  finally  beyond  the  reach,  not  only  of  our  thought,  but  also 
of  our  imagination.     And   yet,  ultimately,  a   deficient   representation   is 
better  than  none  at  all,  and  ours  adheres  to  this  as  its  conclusion  :  the  first 
man  began  his  existence  as  a  rational  and  moral  being,  not  yet  tainted 
with  evil,  and  thus  was  man  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word,  to  whose 
original  nature  sin  does  not  in  any  way  belong. 

15.  The  result  thus  obtained  is  of  great  value,  not  merely  because  it 
contains  the  truth,  which  now  on  its  own  account  asks  for  recognition  and 
support,  but  specially  because  this  latter  stands  in  direct  connection  with 
the  right  knowledge  of  God,  of  man,  and  of  man's  deliverance  by  God. 

14  Rom.  v.  12;  2  Cor.  xi.  3;  I  Tim.  ii.  14. 


THE  POSSIBILITY  OF   FALLING.  385 

We  see  now  for  the  first  time,  in  its  full  splendour,  the  truth  of  the  words 
of  Hab.  i.  13  ;  James  i.  13.  If  man  had  at  the  beginning  been  a  sinner 
what  would  become  of  God's  holiness  in  the  forbidding,  of  God's  wisdom 
in  permitting,  of  God's  justice  in  punishing  sin? — The  enigma,  too,  of  man 
and  of  mankind  is  then  first  solved,  when  we  assume  that  an  original  better 
condition  has  preceded  the  present  sinful  one ;  while  the  honour  of  our 
race  is  also  concerned  that  the  head  of  the  race  should  be  regarded  rather 
as  a  dethroned  king  than  as  a  properly  developed  animal.  Finally,  we  see 
the  possibility  of  deliverance  when  we  regard  the  original  constitution 
of  the  first  man ;  the  necessity,  when  we  recognise  our  sinful  condition  as 
something  contrary  to  nature ;  and  above  all  its  glory,  when  we  observe 
that  by  it  the  original  dignity  of  our  race  is  not  only  restored,  but  enhanced. 
Thus  the  dogma  we  have  been  discussing  is  an  indispensable  corner-stone 
of  the  buildings  of  Theology  and  Theodicee ;  and  with  the  great  Reformer 
we  declare,  "  Non  possumus  clarius  perspicere,  quid  habeamus  in  Christo, 
quam  ubi  nobis  demonstratum  fuerit,  quid  perdiaerimus  in  Adamo"  (Calv. 
ad.  Rom.  v.  12). 

Compare  as  to  man's  original  state,  in  addition  to  the  literature  named  in  §  Ixix.,  SARTO- 
RIUS,  Die  Lehre  von  der  heiligen  Liebe  (1840),  i.,  p.  32,  sqq. ;  H.  LiJKEN,  Die  Traditionen 
des  Menschengeschlechtes  (1856),  p.  49,  sqq.;  the  article  Adam  und  seine  Sbhne  in  Herzog's 
R.  E.  i. ;  and  the  elaborate  article  on  Paradise  in  the  same  work,  vol.  xx. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Whence  springs  the  difficulty  of  accurately  denning  the  original  condition  of  man  ?— Do 
the  different  Bible  accounts  agree,  and  are  they  sufficiently  trustworthy? — What  does  the 
trial  command,  Gen.  ii.  16,  17,  pre-suppose,  import,  and  aim  at? — What  is  the  meaning 
of  Eccles.  vii.  29?— How  far  can  we  predicate  an  education  properly  so  called  of  the  first 
men  by  God? — History  and  criticism  of  the  exaggeration  and  misconception  of  that  doc- 
trine.— Comparison  of  the  sacred  and  profane  representations  of  the  golden  age  before 
mankind. — How  can  we  account  for  the  determined  opposition  to  this  doctrine  ? 


SECTION   LXXI.— THE  POSSIBILITY  OF  FALLING. 

The  possibility  that  the  first  man,  placed  in  such  a  lofty 
could,  notwithstanding,  fall,  had  its  ground,  anthropologically,  in 
the  liberty  of  choice  given  to  him  by  the  possession  of  a  sensuous 
nature,  and,  theologically,  in  the  fact  that  God  wishes  for  moral 
goodness  only  by  means  of  voluntary  obedience.  That  this  possi- 
bility must  necessarily  have  been  realised  is,  however,  a  proposition 
which,  while  finding  no  justification,  is  rejected  because  it  conflicts 
with  the  religious  and  moral  consciousness.  Sin  is  as  little  called 
into  being  by  a  Divine  causality,  as  it  is  originally  ideologically 

willed  and  ordained  by  God. 

C  C 


386  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

1.  If  the  first  man  stood  so  relatively  high,  how  comes  it  to  pass  that  he 
did  not  continue  in  that  happy  state  ?  The  answer  to  this  question  will  cause 
us  to  speak  of  Christian  Hamartology ;  but,  before  we  consider  this  sad 
reality  more  closely,  rational  faith  feels  already  the  necessity  of  searching 
into  the  reason  for  the  possibility  of  so  great  a  fall.     The  investigation  of 
the  physical  and  metaphysical  possibility  of  the  entrance  of  sin  forms  a 
natural  passage  to  the  succeeding  section. 

2.  Anthropologically  the  possibility  of  falling  is  grounded  on  the  liberty 
of  choice,1  which  God  has  given  to  man,  by  means  of  which  all  moral  com- 
pulsion is  entirely  excluded     That,  however,  this  freedom  of  choice,  pre- 
supposed even  in  the   trial-command,   is  yet  not  moral  freedom  in   the 
highest  sense  of  the  word,  is  self-evident;  the  latter  is  then  first  reached, 
when  the  former  is  used  in  giving  of  its  own  accord  the  preference  to  moral 
goodness.     With  the  first  man,  however,  it  had  not  yet  come  to  this ;  in 
opposition  to  the  power  of  not  sinning  (the  posse  non  peccare)  stood  the 
possibility  of  breaking  the  law,  and   that   possibility  was  by  no  means 
imaginary.     Man  certainly  was  not  only  a  spiritual,  but  also  a  sensuous 
being,  and  his  sensuous  nature,  though  in  no  way  the  cause  of  sin,  neverthe- 
less gave  an  opportunity  for  temptation.     There  was  a  natural  difference 
between  flesh  and  spirit,  intended  without  doubt  to  be  resolved  into  the 
most  beautiful  agreement ;   but  which  also  contained  the  possibility  of  the 
contrary,  though  it  must  not  in  any  case  be  conceived  of  as  the  begin- 
ning or  germ  of  sin.      It  was  in  consequence  of  this  that  the  will  was, 
as  Calvin  says,  "flexibilis  in  utramque  partem;"   the  possibility,  but  not 
the  absolute  necessity,  of  continuance  in  good  was  indeed  the  privilege  of 
man.     He  did  not  yet  stand  at  the  end,  but,  like  Hercules  once  at  the 
cross  roads,  only  at  the  beginning  of  his  course,  the  end  must  be  willed 
and  attained   by  himself.     Not  that  he  thus  stood  in  a^  state  of  uncon- 
scious enmity  against  his  Maker ;  on  the  contrary,  the  love  of  God  was 
in  him  and  dwelt  with  him,  but  it  was  his   duty  voluntarily  to  follow  its 
impulse,  if  the  possibility  of  the  opposite  course  was  not  to  be  realised 
in  him.     His  first  step  would  thus  at  the  same  time  be  the  first  revelation 
of  his  freedom  of  choice,  hitherto  undetermined.     We  speak  here  of  course 
only  of  a  mere  possibility,  which  by  no  means  of  necessity  bears  in  itself 
the  germ  of  reality.     Without  such  a  possibility  man  would  not  have  been 
the  bearer  of  God's  image,  but  merely  an  automaton.    A  personality,  which 
does  not  possess  in  itself  the  foundation  of  life,  may,  by  means  of  the  free- 
dom granted  to  it,  turn  away  from  God,  just  because  it  is  a  creature  and 

,  not  a  Creator.     This  possibility  was  thus  inevitable  and  actual,  but  at  the 

[same  time  intended  to  be  merely  temporary,  and  to  lead  to  that  higher 

i  state  in  which  the  posse  non  peccare  would  rise  into  the  non  posse  peccare. 

\     3.  From  a  theological  point  of  view,  the  possibility  of  fall  can,  it  must  be 

confessed,  be  comprehended  only  to  a  certain  degree,  but  this  at  least  can  be 

demonstrated,  and  it  will  be  quite  sufficient  for  our  purpose,  that  it  is  as  little 

opposed  by  God's  omnipotence  and  prescience,  as  by  His  holiness,  wisdom, 

and  love.     The  omnipotence  of  God,  as  we  have  already  said,  must  not  be 

conceived  as  an  irresistible,  blind  natural  force,  but  as  the  almightiness  of 

1  Section  Ixvii.  4. 


THE  POSSIBILITY  OF  FALLING.  387 

a  holy  will,  restricted  by  nothing  but  by  the  perfection  cf  its  own  being. 
When  He  thus  grants  to  a  creature  which  exists  without,  but  by  Him,  a 
freedom  which  he  can  at  any  moment  limit  for  a  sufficient  reason,  He  does 
not  then  in  any  degree  give  up  His  own  omnipotence.  If  the  Almighty 
gives  a  command  to  reasonable  and  moral  beings,  He  creates  at  the  same 
time  the  possibility,  that  it  may  not  be  obeyed,  without  thereby  ceasing  to  be 
omnipotent.  The  freedom  of  the  creature  is  a  plant  whose  branches  the 
Creator  trains,  but  whose  roots  He  does  not  tear  up.  Or  is  the  possibility 
of  sin  in  conflict  with  God'^fradtxtefl  But  not  everything  which  God 
has  foreseen,  is  on  that  account  willed  by  God ;  man  does  not  sin  because 
God  has  thus  determined,  but  as  God  has  foreseen.  Man  need  just  as 
little  sin  because  God  foresaw  it,  as  the  child  need  stumble  because  the 
mother  warns  it. — But  for  this  very  reason  the  recognition  of  the  possibility 
of  sin  does  not  even  in  the  least  degree  affect  the  spotless  holiness  of  God. 
Indeed,  the  leave  to  sin  was  in  no  way  a  permission,  but  simply  a  laisser 
faire,  or  leaving  it  to  itself;  no  moral  permission,  but  a  mere  abstaining  from 
active  interference.  God  has  not  willed  that  there  should  be  sin,  but  only 
that  man  should  be  really  free,  even  to  sin.  If  His  holiness  did  not  forbid 
Him  to  create  such  free  agents,  the  natural  consequences  of  their  deeds 
could  only  be  diverted  by  a  constant  interposition  of  miracles,  such 
as  were  least  of  all  to  be  expected  from  the  highest  wisdom  and  /ore. 
Or  could  this  unceasingly  do  away  with  what  it  had  itself  willed  and 
ordained  ?  Could  man  by  any  other  road  than  that  of  trial  have  risen  to 
a  higher  perfection  ?  Would  obedience  have  possessed  the  slightest  value 
without  liberty?  and  does  not  grace  now  attain  a  higher  lustre  since  it 
leads  our  race  through  the  depth  of  sin  to  the  height  of  deliverance  ?  It 
is  evident  that  the  possibility  of  sin  lias  both  an  anthropological  and  a 
theological  basis,  without  thereby  in  the  very  least  failing  to  render  justice 
either  to  the  original  integrity  of  man,  or  to  the  absolute  perfection 
of  God. 

4.  This,  however,  must  never  be  overlooked  ;  it  is  only  the  possibility 
of  sin,  and  not  its  reality,  which  must  be  regarded  as  a  fruit  of  God's  ordi- 
nance. If  He  permitted  sin,  it  was  not  because  He  could  not  prevent  it, 
since  man  must  necessarily  sin,  but  because  He  willed  not  to  prevent  it. 
What  He,  however,  has  originally  willed,  and  aimed  at,  was  a  world  not 
with,  but  without  sin.  Sin  is  not  an  inevitable  element  of  the  perfected 
world,  but  is  for  that  very  reason  opposed  by  God,  in  order  that  the  world 
should  become  perfect.  Sin  is  originally  found,  not  in  the  Kingdom  of 
God,  but  in  that  of  darkness ;  not  in  the  world  itself,  but  in  God's  govern- 
ment of  the  world  it  has  its  proper  and  permitted  place.  This  follows 
necessarily  from  the  Christian  conception  of  God,3  and  reason  itself  bears 
witness  to  the  truth,  "  peccati  ultor  non  potest  esse  peccati  auctor."  Our 
conscience  says  the  same  when  it  humbly  recognises  the  imputability  of 
sin,  and  for  that  very  reason  welcomes  the  Gospel  of  non- imputation4  as  a 
message  of  glad  tidings.  Certainly,  though  we  must  declare  that  s 
absolutely  inexplicable,  if  it  has  not  in  God  its  ultimate  reason,  even  this 
proposition  would  claim  the  preference  above  the  blasphemy  against  God 

*  Compare  §  IxiL  6.  *  James  L  13 ;  Rom.  iii.  8.  4  2  Cor.  v.  19. 

C  C  2 


388  CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS. 

which  says  "  that  God  has  done  evil  that  good  might  come."  When  first 
it  is  granted  unconditionally,  "  the  possibility  of  sin  only  from  God,  but 
not  its  reality,"  is  His  honour  properly  maintained,  and  the  sinner  alike 
humbled,  comforted,  and  sanctified.5 

Comp.  C.  I.  NlTZSCH,  a.  a.  0.,  §  IO2 ;  K.  H.  SACK,  Psycho! .  Moraliscke  Bemerkungen 
in  Bezug  auf  Geschichte  und  Lehre  vom  Siindenfall  in  Studien  und  Kritiken  (1869),  §  ii., 
336,  sqq.;  J.  MiJLLER,  a.  a.  O.,  ii.,  7 — 300. 

POINTS  FOR  INQUIRY. 

Is  not  the  question  as  to  the  necessity  of  sin  superfluous  ?  and  if  not,  does  it  admit  of  an 
answer  ? — Is  there  conceded  in  any  case  with  freedom  itself  the  possibility  of  evil  ? — 
Elucidation  and  defence  of  the  idea  of  permissio. — Are  there  any  passages  of  Scripture 
where  God  is  represented  as  the  cause  of  sin?  (Prov.  xvi.  4;  Isa.  xlv.  7  ;  Rom  ix.  22  ; 
I  Pet.  ii.  8,  etc.) — How  far  is  it  possible,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Church,  to  escape 
entirely  the  conclusion  that  God  is  auctor  peccati? — Importance  and  use  of  the  result 
obtained. 

8  Compare  Rom.  iii.  4 — 19. 


PROSPECTUS 

OF    THE 

iral  anil  JPIjilosopf  iral  Hi 


EDITED    BY 

HENRY  B.  SMITH,  D.D.  AND  PHILIP  SCHAFF,  D.D., 

PROFESSORS   IN   THE   UMON  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY,    NEW  YORK. 


THE  undersigned  have  begun  the  publication  of  a  select  and  compact  Library  of  Text-Bookl 
Upon  all  the  main  departments  of  Theology  and  Philosophy,  adapted  to  the  wants  especially  6 
ministers  and  students  in  all  denominations. 

Some  of  the  works  will  be  translated  from  the  German  and  other  languages ;  others  will  bx 
based  upon  treatises  by  various  authors ;  some  will  be  written  for  the  Library  by  English  or 
American  scholars.  The  aim  will  be  to  furnish  at  least  one  condensed  standard  work  on  each 
of  the  scientific  divisions  of  Theology  and  Philosophy,  giving  the  results  of  the  best  critica,' 
investigations,  excluding,  however,  such  histories  and  commentaries  as  extend  through  man) 
volumes. 

Among  the  subjects  comprised  in  the  Library  will  be — 

BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY. 

introductions  to  the  Old  and  New  Testaments ;  a  Critical  Edition  of  the  Greek  New  Testa- 
ment ;  the  Canon;  Biblical  Theology;  Biblical  Psychology;  and  perhaps  a  Grammar  and 
Dictionary  of  the  New  Testament  Greek. 

HISTORICAL    THEOLOGY. 

Compends  of  Church  History,  and  of  the  History  of  Doctrines ;  Patristics ;  Ecclesiastical 
Statistics ;  Jewish  and  Christian  Archaeology  ;  Monographs  of  the  History  of  Special  Doctrines, 
or  of  Signal  Epochs. 

SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY. 

Encyclopaedia  of  Theology ;  Apologetics ;  a  Collection  of  the  Creeds  and  Symbols  of  th« 
Church  ;  a  Collection  of  Tuet  logical  Definitions  of  Doctrine,  in  the  various  schools  of  Theol- 
ogy, on  the  basis  of  HASE,  LUTHARDT,  HEPPE,  and  SCHWEIZER  ;  Symbolics,  or  the  Com- 
parative Theology  of  Confessions  of  Faith  ;  Polemics,  with  particular  reference  to  the  Roman 
Catholic  Controversy;  Doctrinal  Theology;  Christian  Ethics;  Collections  of  Essays  on 
particular  Doctrines. 

PRACTICAL     THEOLOGY. 

History  of  Church  Government;  Canon  Law;  Homiletics;  Catechetics;  Liturgies, 
Including  Hymnology ;  Pastoral  Theology. 

PHILOSOPHY. 

History  of  Philosophy ;  Logic  and  Metaphysics;  the  Philosophy  of  Nature;  Psychology: 
Ethics;  /Esthetics;  The  Philosophy  of  Religion ;  The  Philosophy  of  History. 

NOW     READY. 


UEBERWEG'S  HISTORY  OF  PHILOSOPHY. 

Vol.  I.— HISTORY  OF  THE  ANCIENT  AND  MEDIEVAL 
PHILOSOPHY.  By  FRIEDRICH  UEBERWEG.  Translated 
from  the  fourth  German  edition,  by  GKO.  S.  MORRIS, 
A.M.,  with  additions  by  NOAH  PORTER,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  President  of  Yale  College  and  a  Reneral 
Introduction  by  the  Editor  of  the  Philosophical 
Library.  One  vol.  8vo,  cloth,  52.50.  Vol.  II.  — 
HJSTORY  of  MODERN  PHILOSOPHY.  With  an  Essay 
oo  English  Philosophy,  by  Dr.  NOAH  PORTER,  and 


on  Italian  Philosophy,  by  Professor  V.  BOTTA.     i 
vol.  8vo,  cloth,  $2.50. 

VAN  OOSTERZEE'S  CHRISTIAN  DOO- 
MATICS.  A  Text-Book  for  Academical  Instruc- 
tion and  Private  Study.  By  J.  J.  VAN  OOSTERZKC, 
D.D.,  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  University  at 
Utrecht.  Translated  f-om  the  Dutch  by  JOHN  W. 
WATSON,  B.A.,  and  MAUKICB  J.  EVAN*.  B.A 
Two  vols.  8vo,  cloth,  96.00. 


^•Jtest  works  ttrtt,  fost-j><iid,  on  rectijt  of  tht  firict  by  tkt  fitbliiktrt. 

SCRIBNER,  ARMSTRONG  &  CO.,  N.  Y. 


THE  COMPLETE  PHILOSOPHY  FOR  STUDENTS. 

Price  Reduced  to  $5.00 

FOR    THE   TWO   VOLUMES. 

HISTORY    OF    PHILOSOPHY, 

FROM  THALES  TO  THE  PRESENT  TIME. 

By     FRIEDRICH      UEBERWEG 

Late  Professor  of  Philosophy  in  the  University  of  Konigsberg. 

Translated  from  the  fourth  German  edition  by  GEORGE  S.  MORRIS,  A.M. 
1'rofessor  of  Modern  Languages  in  the  University  of  Michigan.  With  Ad- 
ditions by  NOAH  PORTER,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  President  of  Yale  College. 

VOL.  I.  HISTORY  OF  THE  ANCIENT  AND  MEDLffi- 
VAL  PHILOSOPHY.  8vo,  cloth. 

VOL.  II.  HISTORY  OF  MODERN  PHILOSOPHY.  With 
Additions  by  the  Translator.  An  Appendix  on  English  and  American  Philoso- 
phy by  NOAH  PORTER,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  and  an  Appendix  on  Italian  Philosophy 
by  VINCENZO  BOTTA,  Ph.D.,  late  Professor  in  the  University  of  Turin.  8vo, 
cloth. 

A  glance  over  this  great  and  comprehensive  work  cannot  fail  to  impress  one  with  the 
untiring  industry  of  its  lamented  author,  while  it  is  safe  to  say  that  no  one  but  a  German  could 
have  exhibited  the  patient  perseverance  necessary  to  the  accumulation  of  the  immense  mass  of 
material  which  has  been  so  carefully  digested  and  so  compactly  arranged  in  the  more  than  one 
thousand  large  octavo  pages  which  it  contains.  As  was  stated  when  the  first  volume  appeared, 
the  revision  of  the  German  edition  was  one  of  the  last  occupations  of  Prof.  Ueberweg.  In  the 
second  volume,  President  Porter  has  given  a  thorough  review  of  English  and  American  philo- 
sophy, and  Prof.  Botta  of  Italian  philosophy.  The  knowledge  of  either  in  his  particular  field 
is  unsurpassed,  and  their  additions  complete  the  volume  on  the  only  points  in  which  it  was  at 
all  deficient.  The  issue  of  such  a  work,  as  an  independent  enterprise  of  an  American  publisher, 
is  an  event  in  the  history  of  our  philosophical  literature. 


CRITICAL     NOTICES. 

"  A  clear,  condensed,  comprehensive  outline  of  the  different  systems  which  have  been  propounded  from 
the  earliest  to  the  Litest  time.  We  know  of  no  compendium  so  satisfactory  in  all  respects.  It  may  be  recom- 
mended to  students  of  Philosophy  with  all  confidence  as  an  admirable  text-book." — Wist minster  Review. 

"  Ueberweg's  '  History  of  Philosophy"  is  exactly  what  English-speaking  students  want." — London  Examiner. 

"The  work  is  concise  and  clear,  exact  and  suggestive,  comprehensive  and  critical.  It  contains  a  complete 
presentation  of  the  different  philosophical  schools,  and  describes,  with  sufficient  minuteness,  the  principal 
doctrines  which  belong  to  each  system  and  to  subordinate  branches  of  each  system  ;  by  which  means  a  distinct 
picture  is  placed  before  the  mind  of  the  reader.  I-t  meets  at  once  the  wants  of  the  ordinary  student  and  of  the 
independent  in'iuirer." — British  Quarterly  Review. 

"The  sketches  of  the  various  systems  and  the  biographies  of  their  authors,  the  very  full  and  valuable  lists  of 
authorities,  and  the  careful  estimates  of  the  bearings  of  the  systems  upon  each  other,  all  help  to  increase  its  value. 
For  certain  purpose — such,  for  instance,  as  preparing  students  for  examination — it  is  admirably  adapted,  better 
perhaps  thnn  any  other  work  of  the  kind." — London  Spectator. 

"The  late  t)ean  Mansel,  whose  authority  to  speak  on  such  a  matter  was  that  of  a  master  mind,  we  know 
placed  the  very  highest  value  on  this  work,  as  the  most  perfect  and  impartial  of  its  kind.  It  is  clear  and  concise  in 
its  statements,  systematic  in  its  arrangement,  accurate  in  detail,  impartial  in  tone,  never  dull,  and  never  tedious." 
— London  Standard. 

"  It  forms  a  monument  of  American  Scholarship  which  should  be  honored  as  one  of  the  choice  intellectual 
treasures  of  the  country." — ff.  Y.  Tribune. 

"The  whole  work  is  one  of  high  authority  on  philosophical  topics,  and  has  been  made  of  great  value  to  stu- 
dents by  full  notes  on  various  parts  of  the  original  work  added  by  the  translators." — Presbyterian,  P/iila. 

"Ihe  criticisms  are  remarkably  candid  and  impartial.  .  .  The  work  as  it  now  stands,  with  the  last  revision 
of  the  lamented  author,  and  the  valuable  additions  of  President  Porter  and  Prof.  Botta,  is  the  most  complete  com- 


A    NEW    VOLUME    IN 


flogp's 


COMPRISING, 

Xl.X.0  33  LJS,    translated,  with   additions,  by  Rev.  C.  M.  MEAD,  Ph.DM  Professor  in  the 
Theological  Seminary,  Andover,  Mass. 

•LJb  V  JL.LJLCJ  *J  S,    translated,  with    additions,  by  Rev.  FREDERIC  GARDINER,  D.U., 
Professor  in  the  Berkeley  Divinity  School,  Middletown,  Conn. 

With  a  prefatory  note  by  the  general  editor,  Dr.  PHILLIP  SCHAFF,  and  a  general  and  special 
introduction  to  Exodus,  Leviticus,  and  Numbers,  translated  by  Rev.  HOWARD  OSGOOD,  D.D..  of 
Rochester,  unfolding  Dr.  Lange's  original  and  ingenious  idea  of  the  organic  unity  of  the  three  middle 
books  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  their  typical  import. 

There  have  been  thus  far  issued  of  LANGE'S  COMMENTARY,  NINE  Volumes  on  the  Old 
Testament,  and  TEN  on  the  New  Testament,  as  follows  : 

OLD  TESTAMENT  VOLUMES. 


I.  GENESIS. 
II.  EXODUS  and  LEVITICUS. 

III.  JOSHUA,  JUDGES,  and  RUTH. 

IV.  KINGS. 
V.  JOB. 


VI.  PSALMS. 
VII.  PROVERBS,  SONG  OF  SOLOMON,  ECCLESI- 

ASTES. 

VIII.  JEREMIAH  and  LAMENTATIONS. 
IX.  THE  MINOR  PROPHETS. 


In  preparation.— Numbers  and  Deuteronomy  (i  vol.)  ;  I.  and  II.  Samuel  (i  vol.)  ;   Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and 
Esther  (i  vol.) ;   Isaiah  (i  vol.);  Ezekiel  and  Daniel  (i  vol.). 


NEW  TESTAMENT  VOLUMES. 


I.  MATTHEW. 
II.  MARK  and  LUKE. 

III.  JOHN. 

IV.  ACTS. 
V.  ROMANS. 

VI.  CORINTHIANS. 


VII.  GALATIANS,    EPHESIANS,    PuiLirriANs, 

and  COLOSSIANS. 

VIII.  THESSALONIANS,  TIMOTHY,  TITUS,  PHIL- 
EMON, HEBREWS. 

IX.  JAMES,  PETER,  JOHN,  and  JUDE. 
X.  REVELATION.    WITH  AN  INDEX  TO  NEW 
TESTAMENT  VOLS. 


//  mill  be  observed  that  the  New  Testament  portion  is  complete. 

Each  ono  vol.  8vo.    Price  per  vol.,  in  Cloth,  $5.00  ;  in  Sheep,  $6.50 ;  in  Half  Calf,  $7.50. 


NAMES  AND  DENOMINATIONS  OF  CONTRIBUTORS. 


W.  G.  T.  SHEDD.  D.D.,  Presbyterian. 
E.  A.  WASHHURNE.  D.D.,  Episcopal. 
A.  C.  KENDRICK,  D.D.,  Baptist. 
W.  H.  GREEN,   D.D.,  Presbyterian. 
J.  F.  HURST,  D.D.,  Methodist. 
TAYLER  LEWIS,  I.L.D..  Dutch  Reformed. 
REV.  CH.   F.  SHAFFER,  D.D.,   Lutheran. 
R.  D.  HITCHCOCK,  D.D.,  Presbyterian. 
E.  HARWOOD,  D.D.,  Episcopal. 
H.   B.  HACKETT,  1  >.!>..   Baptist. 
]:>HN   I.ILLIE,  D.D.,  Presbyterian. 
KKV.  W.   G.   SUMNKR,  Episcopal. 
PR,>F.  CHARLES  ELLIO'lT,   Presbyterian. 
THOS.  C.  CONANT,  D.D.,  Baptist. 


E.  D.  YEOMANS,  D.D.,  Presbyterian. 

REV.  C.  C.  STARBUCK,  Congregational. 

J.   1SIDOR  MOMBERT,  D.D..  Episcopal. 

D.  W.   POOR,  D.D.   Presbyterian. 

C.  P.  WING.  D.D.,  Presbyterian. 

GEORGE  E.  DAY,  D.D.,  Congregational. 

RKV.  P.  H.  STEENSTRA.  Episcopal. 

A.  GOSMAN,   D.I).,   Presbyterian. 

PRES.  CHARLES  A.  AIKKN.   D.D.,  Presbyterian. 

M.  B.   RIDDLK,  D.D..  Dutch  Reformed. 

PROF.  WM.  WELLS.   I  >.!>.,   Methodist. 

W.  H.   HoRMil.mVKR,   I  >.!>.,   i'rc-,l.yterian. 

PROF.  GEOKC.K  BLISS,  Baptist. 

T.  W.  CHAMBERS,  D.D.,  lleformed. 

Each  volume  of  "LANGE'S  COMMENTARY  "  is  complete  in  itself,  and  can   be  pur- 
chased  separately.     Sent,  post-paid,  upon  receipt  of  the  price  ($5  per  volume)  by  the  publisher, 

SCRIBNER,  ARMSTRONG  &  CO.,  NEW  YORK. 


Reduced  from   $15.00    to    $12.00. 


BY  CHARLES  HODGE,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

Of  Princeton  Theological   Seminary. 


Three  volumes  Sro,  including  Index,    .         .         .         $12.00. 


IN  these  volumes  are  comprised  the  results  of  the  life-long  labors  and  investigations  of  one  of  th< 
nost  eminent  theologians  of  the  age.  The  work  covers  the  ground  usually  occupied  by  treatises  on 
Systematic  Theology,  and  adopts  the  commonly  received  divisions  of  the  subject, — THEOLOGY, 
Vol.  I.  ;  ANTHROPOLOGY,  VoL  II. ;  SOTERIOLOGY  AND  ESCHATOLOGY,  Vol.  III. 

The  INTRODUCTION  is  devoted  to  the  consideration  of  preliminary  matters,  such  as  Method,  or 
tke  principles  which  should  guide  the  student  of  Theology,  and  the  different  theories  as  to  the  source 
»nd  standard  of  our  knowledge  of  divine  things,  Rationalism,  Mysticism,  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine 
of  the  Rule  of  Faith,  and  the  Protestant  doctrine  on  that  subject. 

Tbe  Apartment  of  THEOLOGY  proper  includes  the  origin  of  the  Idea  of  God,  the  Being  of  God, 
the  Anti-Theistic  systems  of  Atheism,  Polytheism,  Materialism,  and  Pantheism  ;  the  Nature  of  God, 
the  Divine  Attributes,  the  Doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  • 
the  Decrees  of  God,  Creation,  Providence,  and  Miracles. 

The  department  of  ANTHROPOLOGY  includes  the  Nature,  Origin,  and  Antiquity  of  Man,  hu 
Primitive  State  and  Probation  ;  the  Fall ;  the  Effect  of  Adam's  sin  upon  himself  and  upon  his  Posterity 
the  Nature  of  Sin ;  the  Different  Philosophical  and  Theological  Theories  on  that  subject. 

SOTERIOLOGY  includes  the  Plan  or  Purpose  of  God  in  reference  to  the  Salvation  of  Man  ;  the 
Person  and  Work  of  the  Redeemer  ;  his  Offices  as  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King ;  the  Work  of  the  Holj 
Spirit  in  applying  the  redemption  purchased  by  Christ ;  Common  and  Efficacious  Grace,  Regeneration, 
Faith,  Justification,  Sanctification,  the  Law  or  Rule  of  Life,  and  the  means  of  Grace. 

ESCHATOLOGY  includes  the  State  of  the  Soul  after  Death ;  the  Second  Coming  of  Christ ;  the 
Resurrection  of  the  Body ;  the  General  Judgment  and  End  of  the  World,  and  the  doctrine  concerning 
Heaven  and  Hell. 

The  plan  of  the  author  is  to  state  and  vindicate  the  teachings  of  the  Bible  on  these  various  subjects, 
and  to  examine  the  antagonistic  doctrines  of  different  classes  of  Theologians.  His  book,  therefore,  is 
intended  to  be  both  didactic  and  elenchtic. 

The  various  topics  are  discussed  with  that  close  and  keen  analytical  and  logical  power,  combined 
with  that  simplicity,  lucidity,  and  strength  of  style  which  have  already  given  Dr.  HODGE  a  world- 
wide reputation  as  a  controversialist  and  writer,  and  as  an  investigator  of  the  great  theological  problems 
of  the  day. 

The  three  volumes  of  Hodge's  Systematic  Theology  sent  to  any  address,  post  or  express 
charges  paid,  upon  receipt  of  $12. 

SCRIBNEE,  ARMSTRONG  &  CO.,  743  &  745  Broadway,  New  York 


GEORGE   SMITH'S   NE"W   STANDARD   WORKS. 


€ff  Blbran  j&Lrrouirf  of 


CONTAINING  THE  DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  CREATION,  THE  FALL  OF  MAN,  THE   DELUGE, 
THE  TOWER  OF  BABEL,  THE  TIMES  OF  THE  PATRIARCHS,  AND  NIMROD  ;  BABYLONIAN 
FABLES,  AND  LEGENDS  OF  THE  GODS  FROM  THE  CUNEIFORM  INSCRIPTIONS. 
By    GEORGE     SMITH, 

Of  the  Department  of  Oriental  Antiquities,  British  Museum,  Author  of  '•  Hittory  of  Assuroanipal" 
"Assyrian    Discoveries"    Etc. 

With   numerous  Illustrations.    1   vol..  sv<>.  .................  $4.00. 

MR.  SMITH'S  first  volume,  Assyrian  Discoveries,  attracted  wide  attention  from  all  Biblical  students,  because 
of  the  important  bearing  of  the  discoveries  it  recorded  upon  the  accuracy  of  the  narrative  of  the  creation,  as 
rehearsed  in  Genesis.  Here  Mr.  Smith  summarizes  the  results  of  still  later  and  more  comprehensive  researches. 
The  inscriptions  which  he  has  deciphered  cover  a  wide  range  of  subjects,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  title  of  the 
volume,  and  are  of  the  most  marked  significance  and  of  the  highest  importance. 

FROM    THE     ENGLISH     REVIEWS. 

"A  step,  the  importance  of  which  cannot  be  overlooked,  has  been  made  in  a  study  whir.h  has  a  religious  ai 
well  as  a  literary  value."  —  Times. 

"The  work  Mr.  Smith  has  here  given  us  is  the  most  interesting  and  the  fullest  we  have  yet  had  from  his 
pen  .....  In  concluding  these  remarks,  we  heartily  commend  Mr.  Smith's  work  to  the  attention  of  every  one  who, 
accepting  the  general  course  of  Biblical  story,  would  wish  to  learn  all  that  can  be  at  present  told  of  the  collateral, 
though  not  contemporaneous,  history  of  Chaldea  and  Babylonia."  —  Athenaum. 

"  Probably  no  single  volume  of  its  kind  was  ever  published  that  contained  more  singular  and  deeply  interesting 
matter.1'  —  Nonconformist. 


A  NEW  EDITION  NOW  BEADY  OF 


IBisrobmrs. 


An  Account  of  Explorations  and  Discoveries  on  the  Site  of  Nineveh  during 

1873  and  1874. 


GEORGE    SMITH, 

Of  the  Department  of  Oriental  Antiquities,  British  Museum. 

With  Maps,  Wood-Cuts,   and  Photographs.        One  vol.,  8vo,  oloth,  94.00. 


OPINIONS    OF    THE    PRESS. 
From  the  N.   Y.  Daily    Tribune. 

"Mr.  Smith  appears  to  have  engaged  in  his  work  with  equal  ardor,  perseverance,  and  good  judgment.  Hb 
habits  as  a  scholar  have  not  impaired  his  efficiency  as  a  practical  man.  The  recital  of  his  experience  is  marked  by 
frankness,  modesty,  and  great  intelligence." 

From   the  St.  Louis  Democrat. 

"The  book  reveals  much  of  the  hitherto  hidden  history  of  the  Assyrian  empire,  and  shows  that  its  people  were 
wise  in  many  things.  The  maxims  translated  from  the  records,  and  the  curious  devices  and  pictures  brought  to 
the  earth's  surface,  give  us  a  clearer  knowledge  of  the  character  of  the  people  that  inhabited  that  nation  than  we 
have  gained  from  any  other  source.  *  *  *  It  is  a  work  of  great  importance,  and  will  be  welcomed  by  all 
scholars  and  antiquaries." 

From  the  N.   Y.  Evening  Post. 

"Mr.  Smith's  book  is  in  clearness  and  accuracy  all  that  could  be  wished:  himself  a  great  authority  on 
Assyrian  antiquities,  he  has  prepared  a  work  which  no  person  who  has  studied  or  intends  to  study  this  fascinating 
tubject  should  fail  to  read." 

From  the   Cincinnati    Commercial. 

"  It  is  in  the  hope  that  these  rich,  first  fruits  of  investigation  will  stimulate  inquiry,  and  induce  the  British 
Government  to  take  hold  of  the  matter,  and  bring  its  influence  to  bear  in  such  a  manner  upon  th 
Government  as  to  secure  its  cooperation  in  prosecuting  a  thorough  system  of  investigation,  that  we  close  Mr. 
Smith's  absorbingly  interesting  book.'' 

From  the   Watchman  and  Reflector. 

"His  book  is  a  simple,  straightforward  record  of  what  he  accomplished,  written  not  to  catch  the  applause  of 
the  ignorant,  but  to  inform  the  wise  and  the  thoughtful.     The  narrative  of  personal  experience  is  interesting,  wn 
out  trace  of  straining  for  sensational  effect.     But  the  chief  value  of  the  work  is  for  its  account  of  things  accom- 
plished." 

Eithe*  of  the  above  -will  be  sent,  prepaid,  upon  receipt  of  price,  by 

SCRIBNER,  ARMSTRONG  &  CO., 

743  &  745  Broadway  New  York. 


eaimFiir'EFg  on 


Now  Complete,  in  Six.  Volumes,  Royal  Svo. 
Half-calf,  $7.50;     Sheep,  30.5O   ;    Cloth,  S5.O'»  -;«"r  volume. 

THE    OLD    TESTAMENT: 

With  an  Explanatory  and  Critical  Coir  me;  tary,   ind  a  Revision 
of  the  Translation 

By  BISHOPS  AND   CLERGY  of  the  AN  rLICAN    CHURCH 

EDITED   BY 

F.  C.  COOK,  M.A.,  CANON  OF  EXETER, 
Preacher  at  Lincoln's  Inn.  and  Chaplain  in  Ordinary  to  the  Queen. 


VOLUM3  I. 
GENESIS.      Rt.  Rev,  E.  H.  BROWNE,  Bishop  of   ELY,   author  of   "  Exposition  of  the  XXXIX 

Articles"  Etc. 

EXODUS.      Canon  COOK  and  Rev.  SAMUEL  CLARK,  author  of  "  The  Bible  Atlas,"  Etc. 
LEVITICUS.    Rev.  SAMUEL  CLARK. 
NUMBERS.   Canon  ESPIN  and  Rev.  J.  F.  THRUPP. 
DEUTERONOMY.      Canon  ESPIN,  author  of  "  Critical  Essays." 

VOLUMES  II  and  III. 

JOSHUA.     Canon  ESPIN. 

JUDGES,  RUTH,  SAMUEL.   Rt.  Rev.  LORD  ARTHUR  HERVEY,  Bp.  of  BATH  and  WELLS,  author 

of  "  Inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,"  Etc. 
KINGS,  CHRONICLES,  EZRA,  NEHEMIAH,  ESTHER,     Canon  RAWLINSON,  author  of  "Five 

Great  Monarchies  of  the  Ancient  East, " 

VOLUME   IV. 

JOB.     Canon  COOK. 

PSALMS.     Very  Rev.  G.  H.  JOHNSON,  Dean   of  WELLS,  author  of  "Sermons   Preached  in  Wells 

Cathedral"  and  Rev.  C.  J.  ELLIOTT. 

PROVERBS.     Rev.  E.  H.  PI.UMPTRE,  author  of  "  Christ  and  Christendom" 
ECCLESIASTES.     Rev.  W.  T.  BULLOCK,  Secretary  to  the  S.  P.  G. 
SONG  OF  SOLOMON.    Rev.  T.  KINGSBURY. 

VOLUME    V. 

ISAIAH.     Rev.  Dr.  W.  KAY,  authoi  of  ' '  The  Psalms  translated  from  the  Hebrew,"  Etc. 
JEREMIAH,  LAMENTATIONS.     R.   PAYNE  SMITH,  D.D.,  Dean  of  CANTERBURY,  author  of 
••  Bampton  Lectures  for  1869,"  Etc. 

VOLUME  VI.— (Nearly  Ready. * 

EZEKIEL.     Rev.  Dr.  G.  CURREY,  author  of  "  Hulsean  Lectures,  1851." 
DANIEL.     Archdeacon  H.  J.  ROSE,  author  of  "Sermons  on  the  Duty  of  the  Clergy,"  Etc.,  and 

Rev.  I.  FULLER. 

MINOR  PROPHETS.    Rev.   E.   HUXTABLE,  Professor  GANDELL,  Rev.  F.  MEYRICK,  Rev.  S 
CLARK,  Rev.  W.  DRAKE. 

***  The  HEW  TESTAMENT  is  in  the  Press. 

Any  or  alt  rf  the  volumes  sent,  post  or  express  charges  prepaid,  on  receipt  of  the  Price,  by  tkt  fuMi**rrt, 

SCRIBNER,  ARMSTRONG  &  CO.,  743  &  745  Broadway,  N.  \ 


PUBLISHED   BY 

SCRIBNER,  ARMSTRONG  &  CO. 
HISTORY  OF  THE  REFORMATION. 

By    GEORGE  P.  FISHER,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  Yale  College,  author  of  "The  S* 

pet-natural  Origin  of  Christianity,"  &c.      One  vol.  8vo,  cloth 93  00 

This  is  a  concise  but  complete  History  of  the  Reformation,  ns  a  whole,  an/1  in  all  the  countries  to  which  it 
extended,  embracing  a  full  account  of  its  causes,  events,  characters,  and  consequences.  It  is  lucid  and  graptjc 
in  style,  and,  as  Professor  FISHER  has  made  the  Reformation  the  stutly  of  his  life,  the  work  displays  throughout 
a  thoroughness  of  research  which  must  make  it  a  standard  authority  upon  the  important  movement  to  the  history 
of  whu.h  it  is  devoted.  

JOWETT'S  DIALOGUES  OF  PLATO. 

Four  vols.  crown  8vo    cloth,  per  set,  cheaper  edition $8  00 

This  work,  by  Prof.  JOWETT,  is  one  of  the  most  splendid  and  valuable  gifts  to  Literature  and  Philosophy  that 
have  for  a  long  time  been  offered.  Its  first  or  most  obvious  excellence  is  the  perfect  ease  and  grace  of  the  trans- 
lation, which  is  thoroughly  English,  and  yet  entirely  exempt  from  any  phrase  or  feature  at  variance  with  the 
Hellenic  character.  Very  few  translations,  other  than  the  Bible,  read  like  an  original ;  but  this  is  one  of  them.  It 
has  other  and  more  recondite  excellences.  It  is  the  work,  almost  the  life-labor,  we  believe,  of  a  profound  scholar, 
a  thoughtful  moralist  and  metaphysician,  and  a  most  successful  instructor  of  youth  ;  and  it  is  manifest  that  tho 
complete  success  that  has  attended  his  execution  of  the  task  is  itself  the  means  of  concealing  the  diligence,  industry, 
and  ability  with  which  philological  and  interpretative  difficulties  must  have  been  solved  or  overcome. — Blackwooa't 
Magazine. 

FROUDES  HISTORY  OF  ENGLAND. 

Complete  in   Twelve  Volume*,   Crown  Octavo. 

THE  CHELSEA  EDITION.     Half  roan,  gilt  top,  per  set ...12100 

THE  POPULAR  EDITION.    Twelve  vols.,  cloth 15  <K 

"  The  style  is  excellent ;  sound,  honest,  forcible,  singularly  perspicuous  English  ;  at  times,  with  a  sort  of  pictur- 
esque simplicity,  pictures  dashed  off  with  only  a  few  touches,  but  perfectly  alive We  have  never  read 

•  passage  twice We  see   the  coutse  of  events   day  by  day,  not  only  of  the  more  serious  and1  important 

communications,  hut   the   gossip  of  the   hour If  truth    and  vivid   reality    be    the   perfection   of  history. 

Jiuch  is  to  be  said  in  favor  of  this  mode  of  composition." — Lamia*  Quarterly. 

FROUDE'S   HISTORY  OF  IRELAND. 

THREE  VOLUMES  NOW  READY.     On  tinted  paper,  cloth 91  *0 

FROUDE'S  SHORT  STUDIES. 

FIRST  AND  SECOND  6KRIKS. 

POPULAR  EDITION.     Two  vols.,  cloth 93  00 

CHELSEA  EDITION.    Two  vols.,  half  Roxburg,  gilt  top 400 


MOMMSEN'S  HISTORY  OF  ROME. 

REPRINTED  FROM  THE  REVISED  LONDON  EDITION.     Four  vols.  crown  8vo.     Per  set ffl  00 

"A  work  of  the  very  highest  merit:  its  learning  is  exact  and  profound:  its  nariativc  full  of  genius  and  skill; 
Its  descriptions  of  men  are  admirably  vivid.  We  wish  to  place  or.  record  our  opinion  that  Dr.  Mommsen's  is  by 
far  the  best  history  of  the  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Commonwealth." — Loniiun  Times. 


CURTIUS'  HISTORY  OF  GREECE. 

Printed  upon  Tinted  Paper,  uniform  with    MOMMSKN'S    HISTORY  OP   ROME,  and   the   Library  Edition  of 
FROUDK'S  HISTOKV  OP  ENGLAND. 

Five  volumes  crown  8vo,  per  vol $2. BO 

"  Professor  CfKTius"  eminent  s«holarship  is  a  sufficient  guarantee  for  the  trustworthiness  of  his  history,  whiU 
the  skill  with  which  he  groups  his  facts,  and  his  effective  mode  of  narrating  them,  combine  to  render  it  no  less  read- 
able than  sound.  Professor  Curtius  everywhere  maintains  the  true  digr.ity  and  impartiality  of  history,  and  it  11 
tvi.lent  his  sympathies  are  on  the  fide  of  justice,  humanity,  and  progress." — London  Atkenirunt. 

"We  can  not  express  our  opinion  of  Dr.  Curtius'  book  better  than  by  saying  that  it  may  be  fitly  ranked  with  Theodw 

Mommsen's  great  work." — London  Spectator         

TO«M  took*  MfU  pott-putt,  upm  receipt  of  tAt  price,  ty  MepuMWUr*. 

SCRIBNER,  ARMSIROUG  &  CO.,  NEW  YORK 


Imprfanf  ^pologtral 

THE  PARACLETE: 

A.n    Essay  on    the    Personality    and    Ministry    of    the     Holy    Ghost,    with 
some    Reference    to    Current    Discussions. 

By  JOSEPH  PARKER,  D.D.,  Author  of  "  ECCE  DEUS,"  etc.    One  vol.,  i2mo,  cloth,  $1.50 

From  the  Church  Journal, 

"  It  is  written  in  a  warm,  devout,  earnest  manner,  with  much  power  of  reasoning  and  wealth  of  illustration, 
and  very  much  suggestiveness,  as  though  the  author  were  rather  burdened  with  the  amount  he  had  to  say 
and  used  necessary  repression.  The  introduction,  and  the  essays  reviewing  Mr.  Huxley,  at  the  end,  are 
perhaps  the  best  parts  of  the  book." 


IODEBN  DOUBT  AND  CHRISTIAN  BELIEF. 

A  SERIES  OF  APOLOGETIC  LECTURES  ADDRESSED  TO  EARNEST 
SEEKERS  AFTER  TRUTH.  By  THEODORE  CHRISTLIEB,  University  Preacher 
and  Professor  of  Theology  at  Bonn.  One  vol.,  8vo,  cloth,  .  .  .  $3.00 

From  the  Presbyterian. 

"One  rises  from  the  reading  of  this  volume  with  mind  and  heart  expanded  and  enriched,  feeling  that  he 
has  seen  the  gigantic  and  imposing  structure  of  skepticism  shattered  and  the  solid  rock  of  Divine  truth  dis- 
closed. He  knows  not  which  to  admire  most — the  author's  wide  and  thorough  research,  the  exhaustivenesi 
of  his  discussion,  his  even-balanced  and  judicial  impartiality,  or  his  clear  and  finished  style.  Every  minister 
and  every  lay  student  of  theology  needs  the  work,  and  no  one  who  saw  and  heard  its  gifted  author  while  in 
this  country  will  need  urging  to  procure  it." 


THE  SUPERHUMAN  ORIGIN  OF  THE  BIBLE 

INFERRED   FROM   ITSELF. 

By  HENRY    ROGERS,   Author    of  "THE  ECLIPSE  OF  FAITH,"  etc.     One  vol.  lamo, 
cloth, $2.00 

From  the  Congregationalist. 

"  Mr.  Rogers  has  constructed  a  volume  which  is  to  outlive  all  his  other  writings.  It  is  an  instructive, 
stir-  ilating,  well-compacted  book.  Most  of  the  considerations  which  he  has  marshaled  in  proof  of  his  thesis 
ha>  been  presented  by  others,  some  of  them  with  greater  fulness  and  equal  brilliancy.  He  has  brought 
tog  her  what  has  been  scattered  in  many  treatises.  He  has  freshened  familiar  illustrations  and  welded 
intr  me  many  common  proofs,  so  that  they  carry  a  new  persuasiveness,  and  he  has  added  not  a  few  subtlo 
tn,  uggestive  and  most  satisfactory  illustrations  of  the  wonderful  nature  of  that  Word  which  abideth." 


The  above  books  sent,  postpaid,  on  receipt  of  the  price,  by  the  publishers, 

SCRIBNER.  ARMSTRONG  &  CO.,  NEW  YORK, 


Bt 


THE  LIBRARY 
IMVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  Dl  E  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


IOOM  1 1/86  Series  9482 


DUL 


3  1205  00738  5907 


A     001  033  047    0 


